Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Ignite spring-data-all-ext extensions 1.0.0 released

[Nikita Safonov]

Hi guys,

I can help with documenting this.

Is there a ticket for updating the Apache Ignite with Spring Data

docs ticket?

Regards,
Nikita

вт, 27 июл. 2021 г. в 17:01, Denis Magda :

> Nikita, thanks for releasing the artifacts.
>
> Could you please update the following documentation section as well?
>
> https://ignite.apache.org/docs/latest/extensions-and-integrations/spring/spring-data#maven-configuration
>
> This is what worked for me:
>
> 1. Ignite Spring Data dependency
>
> 
>org.apache.ignite
>ignite-spring-data-2.2-ext
>1.0.0
> 
>
> 2. Also, I had to provide this dependency to solve various runtime-related
> issues (didn't need to do this with previous version of the integration):
>
> 
> org.springframework.data
> spring-data-commons
>* 2.2.3.RELEASE (this is hardcoded, needs to be
> generic in the docs)*
> 
>
> --
> Denis
>
>
> -
> Denis
>
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 7:46 PM Nikita Amelchev 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Artifacts were uploaded to the maven repo [1, 2, 3, 4].
> >
> > The spring-tx module was migrated in the 2.11 that was not released yet.
> > The extension release is independent of the Ignite release.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.ignite/ignite-spring-data-ext
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.ignite/ignite-spring-data-2.0-ext
> > [3]
> >
> >
> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.ignite/ignite-spring-data-2.2-ext
> > [4]
> >
> >
> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.ignite/ignite-spring-data-commons
> >
> >
> > сб, 24 июл. 2021 г., 04:48 18624049226 <18624049...@163.com>:
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > It seems that these artifact have not been uploaded to Maven Repo? Will
> > > it be uploaded with ignite 2.11?
> > >
> > > This release does not include spring-tx-ext, but the documentation of
> > > this artifact has been merged into the ignite-2.11 branch, What's
> wrong?
> > >
> > > 在 2021/7/7 下午1:49, Nikita Amelchev 写道:
> > > > The Apache Ignite Community is pleased to announce the release of
> > > > Apache Ignite Spring Data extensions 1.0.0.
> > > >
> > > > The following integrations were migrated to the Apache Ignite
> > > > Extensions repository:
> > > >
> > > > - Spring Data 2.2 extension.
> > > > - Spring Data 2.0 extension.
> > > > - Spring Data extension.
> > > >
> > > > Release notes:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://ignite.apache.org/releases/ext/spring-data-all-1.0.0/release_notes.html
> > > >
> > > > The sources package is available here:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://downloads.apache.org/ignite/ignite-extensions/ignite-spring-data-all-ext/1.0.0/
> > > >
> > > > Please let us know if you have any problems
> > > > https://ignite.apache.org/community/resources.html#ask
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Indexing of Pony Mail archives by search engines

[Denis Magda]

Daniel, thanks for stepping in. It's good to know Google is not prohibited
from doing its indexing matters.

I've done a simple test by comparing a Google search result for "apache
ignite stopping abruptly" across Pony Mail vs. Nabble archives:

   - We have 0 topics found on Pony Mail -
   
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alists.apache.org+apache+ignite+stopping+abruptly&client=safari&rls=en&ei=e3ACYanuDo2VrwSt44kY&oq=site%3Alists.apache.org+apache+ignite+stopping+abruptly&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EANKBAhBGAFQ5oYFWOaGBWCYiwVoAXAAeACAASqIAU6SAQEymAEAoAECoAEBwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwjpl9LG94fyAhWNyosKHa1xAgMQ4dUDCA0&uact=5



   - And 10 topics on Nabble -
   
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aapache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com+apache+ignite+stopping+abruptly&client=safari&rls=en&ei=KXECYezNCdGJrwSygaKgCg&oq=site%3Aapache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com+apache+ignite+stopping+abruptly&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EANKBAhBGAFQkBtY8CNghihoAXAAeACAASqIAaYCkgEBOJgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwishsmZ-IfyAhXRxIsKHbKACKQQ4dUDCA0&uact=5


So, for some reason, Google didn't get to those 10 articles in our Pony
Mail archives. It might be because Google robots just don't have enough
time to walk through all 28+ million topics/pages or due to some settings
on our side. At the same time, StackOverflow doesn't have this problem
while it should have much more topics.

-
Denis

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 5:42 PM Daniel Gruno  wrote:

> On 28/07/2021 16.17, Denis Magda wrote:
> > Dave,
> >
> > Just to confirm, does it mean that we allow robots of Google and other
> > search engines to index the archives? My use case is this - I open
> > Google, type in something related to Ignite and Google shows Pony Mail
> > topics in the search result.
>
> We allow indexing, yes, and Google knows how to render the pages and
> index them. There are 28 million emails in the archives, I suspect this
> is in part a matter of waiting till all that gets indexed at least once,
> but I'm no Googler, so I can't say for sure.
>
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > On Wednesday, July 28, 2021, Dave Fisher  > > wrote:
> >
> > Pony Mail does index for search and has a search box.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Jul 28, 2021, at 4:33 AM, Denis Magda  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> Historically, we at the Apache Ignite community set up and used
> >> Nabble mail archives to let our users easily search for topics via
> >> Google and other engines. That worked well until Nabble started to
> >> downsize its resources and its mail archives went out of sync with
> >> our user/dev lists.
> >>
> >> We've already updated the Nabble forums settings to highlight this
> >> change and to encourage to use Pony Mail as an alternative mail
> >> archive viewer: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com
> >> 
> >>
> >> However, one problem is not solved yet - indexing of our mail
> >> archives. Is there any technical way to enable indexing in Pony
> >> Mail, at least for the Ignite user/dev lists? Otherwise,
> >> StackOverflow will be getting all the search traffic.
> >>
> >> -
> >> Denis
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -
> > Denis
> >
>
>

Re: Review Requested -- IGNITE-15077

[Atri Sharma]

Hi Ilya,

Following up on this please.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, 22:20 Atri Sharma,  wrote:

> Hi Ilya,
>
>
> > Frankly speaking, I do not see the value of having an extra layer of
> > indirection around *local* Quartz-based scheduler in Ignite. Can you
> > elaborate?
>
> I didnt quite understand that. Are you referring to the
> IgniteCombinedSchedulerProcessor?
> >
> > Our guidelines also recommend having issue description to document the
> whys
> > and hows, and not just issue title.
>
> Sure, I will update the issue with more details.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Atri
> Apache Concerted
>

Re: Review Requested -- IGNITE-15077

[Andrey Mashenkov]

Atri.

I think Ilya means IgniteCombinedSchedulerProcessor that delegates calls to
2 different Scheduler implementations.
And the logic may not be enough clear for a user.

1. You added a new mandatory dependency on Quartz.
We are trying to avoid this as much as possible, because this may lead to
the jar-hell issue on the user-side.
E.g in case the user uses the same library of the other version for other
purposes.

Is it possible to move scheduler implementation based on Quartz to a
separate module and make the module optional?
Or maybe move it to Ignite extensions?

2. Does it make sense to split Combined scheduler into 2 separate
implementations?
It looks ok if they will have slightly different capabilities on API if all
the limitations will be well-documented.
I mean Javadoc in implementation class must provide this information, along
with the common interface methods describe possible errors in a "@throw"
section in javadoc.


On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 1:15 PM Atri Sharma  wrote:

> Hi Ilya,
>
> Following up on this please.
>
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, 22:20 Atri Sharma,  wrote:
>
> > Hi Ilya,
> >
> >
> > > Frankly speaking, I do not see the value of having an extra layer of
> > > indirection around *local* Quartz-based scheduler in Ignite. Can you
> > > elaborate?
> >
> > I didnt quite understand that. Are you referring to the
> > IgniteCombinedSchedulerProcessor?
> > >
> > > Our guidelines also recommend having issue description to document the
> > whys
> > > and hows, and not just issue title.
> >
> > Sure, I will update the issue with more details.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Atri
> > Apache Concerted
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: [Announcement] Apache Ignite 2.11 Code Freeze started

[Alexey Gidaspov]

Hi, Igor!

Now we are in stabilization phase and accepting only blockers. I may be wrong, 
but this ticket doesn't seem to be of that kind. 

On 2021/07/28 21:00:15, Igor Sapego  wrote: 
> Igniters,
> 
> I suggest adding [1] to the scope of release, because it contains
> changes to code introduced by [2], which is already included in release.
> 
> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14815
> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14658
> 
> Best Regards,
> Igor
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:30 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> 
> > Folks,
> >
> > The issues mentioned above were successfully resolved and
> > cherry-picked to the ignite-2.11 branch. Sorry for the delay. I think
> > we can proceed with the release.
> >
> > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 15:44, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> > >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Yes, both the fixes [1] [2] will not require performance tests rerun.
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15146
> > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15170
> > >
> > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 15:30, Dmitry Pavlov  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I personally trust opinion of Nikolay and Maxim, we can consider both
> > as blockers.
> > > >
> > > > Just an idea to consider:
> > > > For fixed ticket/PR (
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15170)  most likely we don't
> > need to re-run performance tests.
> > > >
> > > > If second issue has no impact on performance, we can take perf results
> > from rc.-1 and run only functional tests for rc.0.
> > > >
> > > > On 2021/07/22 04:44:01, "Николай Ижиков"  wrote:
> > > > > +1 to fix both prior to release
> > > > >
> > > > > Отправлено с iPhone
> > > > >
> > > > > > 22 июля 2021 г., в 02:36, Maxim Muzafarov 
> > написал(а):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We've faced [1][2] issues related to the new functionality added to
> > > > > > the 2.11 release (it will be safe to merge to the release branch).
> > > > > > From my point of view, both of them are critical and must be
> > included
> > > > > > in the 2.11 release.
> > > > > > The [2] is ready for merge. The [1] will be completed by the end
> > of this week.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please share your thoughts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15146
> > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15170
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 at 15:08, Maxim Muzafarov 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Folks,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Since the release branch was created some time ago, should we
> > bump up
> > > > > >> the master branch version to the next one?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 17:15, Alexey Gidaspov <
> > olive.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Hi, Pavel.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I think, it looks like blocker. Please cherry-pick it to 2.11
> > release branch
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On 2021/07/01 09:29:57, Pavel Pereslegin 
> > wrote:
> > > > >  Hello, Alexey!
> > > > > 
> > > > >  Is it possible to include a hotfix that corrects the command
> > syntax
> > > > >  output in the control script? [1]
> > > > > 
> > > > >  This bug can significantly complicate the use of the snapshot
> > restore
> > > > >  function (one of the important features of 2.11). In addition,
> > this
> > > > >  may raise a number of questions to the product support, which
> > we can
> > > > >  prevent by adding this patch in 2.11.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  This patch does not affect any functions other than the "help"
> > output
> > > > >  of the control script.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14989
> > > > > 
> > > > >  чт, 1 июл. 2021 г. в 11:56, Alexey Gidaspov <
> > olive.c...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Iilya!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I can see, this feature highly improves debugging during
> > incidents. So I think we can call it blocker and cherry-pick to ignite-2.11
> > branch
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2021/06/30 20:26:43, Shishkov Ilya 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >> Hello, Alexey!
> > > > > >> Is it possible to add system views for BaselineNode
> > attributes [1] and
> > > > > >> corresponding documentation [2] to 2.11?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15007
> > > > > >> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15028
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ср, 30 июн. 2021 г. в 11:07, Nikita Amelchev <
> > namelc...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Thanks! I have cherry-picked the commit to the 2.11 branch.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> ср, 30 июн. 2021 г. в 11:00, Alexey Gidaspov <
> > olive.c...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > 
> > > > >  Hi, Nikita!
> > > > > 
> > > > >  I think it's important fix and should be included in 2.11
> > release. I've
> > > > > >>> tagged ticket by fixVersi

Re: Review Requested -- IGNITE-15077

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

Hello!

We now have 2 schedulers under the hood, whereas the optimal number is zero.

I would very like to see a commit where the whole ignite-schedule package
is sunsetted. With prior discussion on dev list, of course.
I don't see the value of having local scheduling as part of Apache Ignite
at all. It's very spotty and does not integrate with the rest of features.
I know that GridGain makes use of the existing scheduling code, but since
they do that on a separate code base they probably won't object to removal.

If you plan on improving the Schedule module, instead of removing it, I
would ask you to post a roadmap of that feature on the developers list,
where you describe what you are planning to implement and why.

Right now it is totally not obvious why I would use the new scheduleLocal
methods instead of just adding Quartz to the project and calling that.
Apache Ignite is not an universal middleware like Spring, it's a database.

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


чт, 29 июл. 2021 г. в 14:45, Andrey Mashenkov :

> Atri.
>
> I think Ilya means IgniteCombinedSchedulerProcessor that delegates calls to
> 2 different Scheduler implementations.
> And the logic may not be enough clear for a user.
>
> 1. You added a new mandatory dependency on Quartz.
> We are trying to avoid this as much as possible, because this may lead to
> the jar-hell issue on the user-side.
> E.g in case the user uses the same library of the other version for other
> purposes.
>
> Is it possible to move scheduler implementation based on Quartz to a
> separate module and make the module optional?
> Or maybe move it to Ignite extensions?
>
> 2. Does it make sense to split Combined scheduler into 2 separate
> implementations?
> It looks ok if they will have slightly different capabilities on API if all
> the limitations will be well-documented.
> I mean Javadoc in implementation class must provide this information, along
> with the common interface methods describe possible errors in a "@throw"
> section in javadoc.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 1:15 PM Atri Sharma  wrote:
>
> > Hi Ilya,
> >
> > Following up on this please.
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, 22:20 Atri Sharma,  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ilya,
> > >
> > >
> > > > Frankly speaking, I do not see the value of having an extra layer of
> > > > indirection around *local* Quartz-based scheduler in Ignite. Can you
> > > > elaborate?
> > >
> > > I didnt quite understand that. Are you referring to the
> > > IgniteCombinedSchedulerProcessor?
> > > >
> > > > Our guidelines also recommend having issue description to document
> the
> > > whys
> > > > and hows, and not just issue title.
> > >
> > > Sure, I will update the issue with more details.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Atri
> > > Apache Concerted
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: [Announcement] Apache Ignite 2.11 Code Freeze started

[Igor Sapego]

Alexey,

It contains changes we could not introduce if we release ignite in its
current state as they are going to be breaking changes.

Best Regards,
Igor


On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 4:13 PM Alexey Gidaspov 
wrote:

> Hi, Igor!
>
> Now we are in stabilization phase and accepting only blockers. I may be
> wrong, but this ticket doesn't seem to be of that kind.
>
> On 2021/07/28 21:00:15, Igor Sapego  wrote:
> > Igniters,
> >
> > I suggest adding [1] to the scope of release, because it contains
> > changes to code introduced by [2], which is already included in release.
> >
> > [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14815
> > [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14658
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:30 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > The issues mentioned above were successfully resolved and
> > > cherry-picked to the ignite-2.11 branch. Sorry for the delay. I think
> > > we can proceed with the release.
> > >
> > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 15:44, Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, both the fixes [1] [2] will not require performance tests rerun.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15146
> > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15170
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 15:30, Dmitry Pavlov 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I personally trust opinion of Nikolay and Maxim, we can consider
> both
> > > as blockers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just an idea to consider:
> > > > > For fixed ticket/PR (
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15170)  most likely we
> don't
> > > need to re-run performance tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > If second issue has no impact on performance, we can take perf
> results
> > > from rc.-1 and run only functional tests for rc.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2021/07/22 04:44:01, "Николай Ижиков" 
> wrote:
> > > > > > +1 to fix both prior to release
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Отправлено с iPhone
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 22 июля 2021 г., в 02:36, Maxim Muzafarov 
> > > написал(а):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We've faced [1][2] issues related to the new functionality
> added to
> > > > > > > the 2.11 release (it will be safe to merge to the release
> branch).
> > > > > > > From my point of view, both of them are critical and must be
> > > included
> > > > > > > in the 2.11 release.
> > > > > > > The [2] is ready for merge. The [1] will be completed by the
> end
> > > of this week.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please share your thoughts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15146
> > > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15170
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 at 15:08, Maxim Muzafarov <
> mmu...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Folks,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Since the release branch was created some time ago, should we
> > > bump up
> > > > > > >> the master branch version to the next one?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 17:15, Alexey Gidaspov <
> > > olive.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Hi, Pavel.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I think, it looks like blocker. Please cherry-pick it to 2.11
> > > release branch
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On 2021/07/01 09:29:57, Pavel Pereslegin 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >  Hello, Alexey!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  Is it possible to include a hotfix that corrects the command
> > > syntax
> > > > > >  output in the control script? [1]
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  This bug can significantly complicate the use of the
> snapshot
> > > restore
> > > > > >  function (one of the important features of 2.11). In
> addition,
> > > this
> > > > > >  may raise a number of questions to the product support,
> which
> > > we can
> > > > > >  prevent by adding this patch in 2.11.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  This patch does not affect any functions other than the
> "help"
> > > output
> > > > > >  of the control script.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14989
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  чт, 1 июл. 2021 г. в 11:56, Alexey Gidaspov <
> > > olive.c...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Iilya!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As I can see, this feature highly improves debugging during
> > > incidents. So I think we can call it blocker and cherry-pick to
> ignite-2.11
> > > branch
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2021/06/30 20:26:43, Shishkov Ilya <
> shishkovi...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> Hello, Alexey!
> > > > > > >> Is it possible to add system views for BaselineNode
> > > attributes [1] and
> > > > > > >> corresponding documentation [2] to 2.11?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15007
> > > > > > >> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/b

Re: [Announcement] Apache Ignite 2.11 Code Freeze started

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

Hello!

I think it does make sense to include changes which will let us avoid
migration issues in the future.

Alternatively, maybe we can revert the incomplete change from 2.11 in order
to reintroduce it in 2.12 in full form if Igor agrees and RE thinks this is
the best course of action.

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


чт, 29 июл. 2021 г. в 18:07, Igor Sapego :

> Alexey,
>
> It contains changes we could not introduce if we release ignite in its
> current state as they are going to be breaking changes.
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 4:13 PM Alexey Gidaspov 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Igor!
> >
> > Now we are in stabilization phase and accepting only blockers. I may be
> > wrong, but this ticket doesn't seem to be of that kind.
> >
> > On 2021/07/28 21:00:15, Igor Sapego  wrote:
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > I suggest adding [1] to the scope of release, because it contains
> > > changes to code introduced by [2], which is already included in
> release.
> > >
> > > [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14815
> > > [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14658
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Igor
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:30 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > The issues mentioned above were successfully resolved and
> > > > cherry-picked to the ignite-2.11 branch. Sorry for the delay. I think
> > > > we can proceed with the release.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 15:44, Maxim Muzafarov 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, both the fixes [1] [2] will not require performance tests
> rerun.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15146
> > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15170
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 15:30, Dmitry Pavlov 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I personally trust opinion of Nikolay and Maxim, we can consider
> > both
> > > > as blockers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just an idea to consider:
> > > > > > For fixed ticket/PR (
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15170)  most likely we
> > don't
> > > > need to re-run performance tests.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If second issue has no impact on performance, we can take perf
> > results
> > > > from rc.-1 and run only functional tests for rc.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2021/07/22 04:44:01, "Николай Ижиков" 
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > +1 to fix both prior to release
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Отправлено с iPhone
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 22 июля 2021 г., в 02:36, Maxim Muzafarov  >
> > > > написал(а):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We've faced [1][2] issues related to the new functionality
> > added to
> > > > > > > > the 2.11 release (it will be safe to merge to the release
> > branch).
> > > > > > > > From my point of view, both of them are critical and must be
> > > > included
> > > > > > > > in the 2.11 release.
> > > > > > > > The [2] is ready for merge. The [1] will be completed by the
> > end
> > > > of this week.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please share your thoughts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15146
> > > > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15170
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 at 15:08, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > mmu...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Folks,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Since the release branch was created some time ago, should
> we
> > > > bump up
> > > > > > > >> the master branch version to the next one?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 17:15, Alexey Gidaspov <
> > > > olive.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Hi, Pavel.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> I think, it looks like blocker. Please cherry-pick it to
> 2.11
> > > > release branch
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> On 2021/07/01 09:29:57, Pavel Pereslegin  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >  Hello, Alexey!
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  Is it possible to include a hotfix that corrects the
> command
> > > > syntax
> > > > > > >  output in the control script? [1]
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  This bug can significantly complicate the use of the
> > snapshot
> > > > restore
> > > > > > >  function (one of the important features of 2.11). In
> > addition,
> > > > this
> > > > > > >  may raise a number of questions to the product support,
> > which
> > > > we can
> > > > > > >  prevent by adding this patch in 2.11.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  This patch does not affect any functions other than the
> > "help"
> > > > output
> > > > > > >  of the control script.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14989
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  чт, 1 июл. 2021 г. в 11:56, Alexey Gidaspov <
> > > > olive.c...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 

[ANNOUNCE] Welcome Zhenya Stanilovsky as a new committer

[Maxim Muzafarov]

The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache Ignite has invited
Zhenya Stanilovsky to become a committer and we are pleased to announce that
he has accepted.

For the last few years, Zhenya made a lot of performance fixes
especially for the core modules and important contributions to the
Apache Ignite codebase. He is actively involved in integrating the
Calcite framework with Apache Ignite. Moreover, he has been a great
help in the preparation of several Apache Ignite major releases by
carrying out stress-load tests. Besides the code contributions, Zhenya
is also an active community member and help users on dev and users
lists.

Being a committer enables easier contribution to the project since there is
no need to go via the patch submission process. This should enable better
productivity.

Please join me in welcoming Ivan, and congratulating him on the new role in
the Apache Ignite Community.

Best Regards,
Maxim Muzafarov

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Welcome Zhenya Stanilovsky as a new committer

[Alex Plehanov]

Zhenya, congratulations! Well deserved!


пт, 30 июл. 2021 г. в 00:06, Maxim Muzafarov :

> The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache Ignite has invited
> Zhenya Stanilovsky to become a committer and we are pleased to announce
> that
> he has accepted.
>
> For the last few years, Zhenya made a lot of performance fixes
> especially for the core modules and important contributions to the
> Apache Ignite codebase. He is actively involved in integrating the
> Calcite framework with Apache Ignite. Moreover, he has been a great
> help in the preparation of several Apache Ignite major releases by
> carrying out stress-load tests. Besides the code contributions, Zhenya
> is also an active community member and help users on dev and users
> lists.
>
> Being a committer enables easier contribution to the project since there is
> no need to go via the patch submission process. This should enable better
> productivity.
>
> Please join me in welcoming Ivan, and congratulating him on the new role in
> the Apache Ignite Community.
>
> Best Regards,
> Maxim Muzafarov
>

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Welcome Zhenya Stanilovsky as a new committer

[Andrey Mashenkov]

Congratulations Zhenya!


On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 12:06 AM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:

> The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache Ignite has invited
> Zhenya Stanilovsky to become a committer and we are pleased to announce
> that
> he has accepted.
>
> For the last few years, Zhenya made a lot of performance fixes
> especially for the core modules and important contributions to the
> Apache Ignite codebase. He is actively involved in integrating the
> Calcite framework with Apache Ignite. Moreover, he has been a great
> help in the preparation of several Apache Ignite major releases by
> carrying out stress-load tests. Besides the code contributions, Zhenya
> is also an active community member and help users on dev and users
> lists.
>
> Being a committer enables easier contribution to the project since there is
> no need to go via the patch submission process. This should enable better
> productivity.
>
> Please join me in welcoming Ivan, and congratulating him on the new role in
> the Apache Ignite Community.
>
> Best Regards,
> Maxim Muzafarov
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: [Announcement] Apache Ignite 2.11 Code Freeze started

[Igor Sapego]

I'm fine with any of these two solutions.

Best Regards,
Igor


On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 6:36 PM Ilya Kasnacheev 
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I think it does make sense to include changes which will let us avoid
> migration issues in the future.
>
> Alternatively, maybe we can revert the incomplete change from 2.11 in order
> to reintroduce it in 2.12 in full form if Igor agrees and RE thinks this is
> the best course of action.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> чт, 29 июл. 2021 г. в 18:07, Igor Sapego :
>
> > Alexey,
> >
> > It contains changes we could not introduce if we release ignite in its
> > current state as they are going to be breaking changes.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 4:13 PM Alexey Gidaspov 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, Igor!
> > >
> > > Now we are in stabilization phase and accepting only blockers. I may be
> > > wrong, but this ticket doesn't seem to be of that kind.
> > >
> > > On 2021/07/28 21:00:15, Igor Sapego  wrote:
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > I suggest adding [1] to the scope of release, because it contains
> > > > changes to code introduced by [2], which is already included in
> > release.
> > > >
> > > > [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14815
> > > > [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14658
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Igor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:30 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > The issues mentioned above were successfully resolved and
> > > > > cherry-picked to the ignite-2.11 branch. Sorry for the delay. I
> think
> > > > > we can proceed with the release.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 15:44, Maxim Muzafarov 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, both the fixes [1] [2] will not require performance tests
> > rerun.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15146
> > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15170
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 15:30, Dmitry Pavlov 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I personally trust opinion of Nikolay and Maxim, we can
> consider
> > > both
> > > > > as blockers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just an idea to consider:
> > > > > > > For fixed ticket/PR (
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15170)  most likely
> we
> > > don't
> > > > > need to re-run performance tests.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If second issue has no impact on performance, we can take perf
> > > results
> > > > > from rc.-1 and run only functional tests for rc.0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2021/07/22 04:44:01, "Николай Ижиков" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > +1 to fix both prior to release
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Отправлено с iPhone
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 22 июля 2021 г., в 02:36, Maxim Muzafarov <
> mmu...@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > написал(а):
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We've faced [1][2] issues related to the new functionality
> > > added to
> > > > > > > > > the 2.11 release (it will be safe to merge to the release
> > > branch).
> > > > > > > > > From my point of view, both of them are critical and must
> be
> > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > in the 2.11 release.
> > > > > > > > > The [2] is ready for merge. The [1] will be completed by
> the
> > > end
> > > > > of this week.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please share your thoughts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15146
> > > > > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15170
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 at 15:08, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > > mmu...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Folks,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Since the release branch was created some time ago, should
> > we
> > > > > bump up
> > > > > > > > >> the master branch version to the next one?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 17:15, Alexey Gidaspov <
> > > > > olive.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Hi, Pavel.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> I think, it looks like blocker. Please cherry-pick it to
> > 2.11
> > > > > release branch
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> On 2021/07/01 09:29:57, Pavel Pereslegin <
> xxt...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >  Hello, Alexey!
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >  Is it possible to include a hotfix that corrects the
> > command
> > > > > syntax
> > > > > > > >  output in the control script? [1]
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >  This bug can significantly complicate the use of the
> > > snapshot
> > > > > restore
> > > > > > > >  function (one of the important features of 2.11). In
> > > addition,
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > >  may raise a number of questions to the product support,
> > > which
> > > > > w

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Welcome Zhenya Stanilovsky as a new committer

[Ivan Daschinsky]

Zhenya, congrats, well deserved!

пт, 30 июл. 2021 г. в 00:44, Andrey Mashenkov :

> Congratulations Zhenya!
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 12:06 AM Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
>
> > The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache Ignite has invited
> > Zhenya Stanilovsky to become a committer and we are pleased to announce
> > that
> > he has accepted.
> >
> > For the last few years, Zhenya made a lot of performance fixes
> > especially for the core modules and important contributions to the
> > Apache Ignite codebase. He is actively involved in integrating the
> > Calcite framework with Apache Ignite. Moreover, he has been a great
> > help in the preparation of several Apache Ignite major releases by
> > carrying out stress-load tests. Besides the code contributions, Zhenya
> > is also an active community member and help users on dev and users
> > lists.
> >
> > Being a committer enables easier contribution to the project since there
> is
> > no need to go via the patch submission process. This should enable better
> > productivity.
> >
> > Please join me in welcoming Ivan, and congratulating him on the new role
> in
> > the Apache Ignite Community.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Maxim Muzafarov
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>