Re: [DISCUSSION] Send documentation feedback notifications to dev list

2021-08-09 Thread Pavel Tupitsyn 
I agree, let's keep the dev list clean.
Automated notifications of any kind should not be sent to dev@i.a.o.

PS Ivan, links 2 and 3 are the same.

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 8:54 AM Ivan Pavlukhin  wrote:

> Igniters,
>
> Recently documentation feedback notifications were set up. And
> currently destination for such notifications is dev list
> dev@ignite.apache.org. It was announced in [1]. A notification message
> itself looks as [2].
>
> Let's discuss if we all are fine with this notifications on dev list
> as much effort was spent for keeping dev list clean, e.g. [3]. For me
> personally these notifications are some kind of "noice" as I read the
> list on spare time.
>
> Please share your opinion! Formal vote will be started if needed.
>
> [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf6b0ee140239ae119c97fe4022316b4e2f5c9f06a677bace5033e313%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
> [2]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rbd7c06f76559f46bc2872484529bc4fa1c503d705b6cc379156f0bb0%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
> [3]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rbd7c06f76559f46bc2872484529bc4fa1c503d705b6cc379156f0bb0%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] Send documentation feedback notifications to dev list

2021-08-09 Thread Anton Vinogradov 
+1 to keeping the dev list clean.

On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 11:00 AM Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:

> I agree, let's keep the dev list clean.
> Automated notifications of any kind should not be sent to dev@i.a.o.
>
> PS Ivan, links 2 and 3 are the same.
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 8:54 AM Ivan Pavlukhin  wrote:
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > Recently documentation feedback notifications were set up. And
> > currently destination for such notifications is dev list
> > dev@ignite.apache.org. It was announced in [1]. A notification message
> > itself looks as [2].
> >
> > Let's discuss if we all are fine with this notifications on dev list
> > as much effort was spent for keeping dev list clean, e.g. [3]. For me
> > personally these notifications are some kind of "noice" as I read the
> > list on spare time.
> >
> > Please share your opinion! Formal vote will be started if needed.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf6b0ee140239ae119c97fe4022316b4e2f5c9f06a677bace5033e313%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
> > [2]
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rbd7c06f76559f46bc2872484529bc4fa1c503d705b6cc379156f0bb0%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
> > [3]
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rbd7c06f76559f46bc2872484529bc4fa1c503d705b6cc379156f0bb0%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
> >
> > --
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >
>

Re: Re[2]: Google Guava in Ignite 3

2021-08-09 Thread Alexander Polovtcev 
Zhenya, Courtney, Andrey,

What do you think about my arguments, was I able to convince you? I would
like to reach some consensus here. At the moment, my original points still
stand, I'm also ok with shading Guava if needed, though I think it is not
necessary at this point.

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 12:45 PM Alexander Polovtcev 
wrote:

> Zhenya,
>
> > But there is no restrictions from running ignite server nodes from some
> other code with it`s own guava version seems we obtain fast path to jar
> hell here?
>
> I'm not sure if I fully understand your question, but it looks like we are
> in this situation already, because we have some dependencies that use
> Guava. That's why I propose to add Guava explicitly to at least have a
> deterministic runtime configuration (see this link
> 
> for an explanation).
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 12:25 PM Zhenya Stanilovsky
>  wrote:
>
>>
>> Alexander, first of all looks like Ivan Daschinsky approach about thin
>> client use only and shadow plugin are cover all Andrey Mashenkov listing
>> problems.
>> But there is no restrictions from running ignite server nodes from some
>> other code with it`s own guava version seems we obtain fast path to jar
>> hell here?
>>
>>
>> >Zhenya,
>> >
>> >My intentions are the following:
>> >
>> >1. Remove some copy-pasted code (like the "bytecode" module or some
>> utility
>> >methods). Please see my original message for the links to the code.
>> >2. Explicitly pin the Guava version to avoid conflicts in the runtime.
>> >
>> >About allowing to use Guava in the codebase, my thoughts are the
>> following:
>> >
>> >1. We *already* use some code from Guava either directly (like in the
>> >"calcite" module) or by copy-pasting it into a utility class.
>> >2. I understand that some Guava methods are obsolete as of Java 11, but
>> >some of them still don't have any standard library counterparts, in which
>> >case I think using Guava is justified (which is supported by point 1).
>> >
>> >Can you please explain why you would disapprove of my proposal?
>> >
>> >On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 7:56 PM Zhenya Stanilovsky
>> >< arzamas...@mail.ru.invalid > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> alexpolovtcev please clarify what do you mean under : «possibility of
>> >> using Guava in Ignite 3», using how necessary dependency of calcite or
>> >> using like «using in our code» ? If using in code, i -1 here.
>> >> thanks.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Hello, dear Igniters!
>> >> >
>> >> >I would like to discuss the possibility of using Guava
>> >> ><  https://github.com/google/guava > in Ignite 3. I know about the
>> >> restrictive
>> >> >policy of using it in Ignite 2, but I have the following reasons:
>> >> >
>> >> >1. We are de-facto using it already as an implicit dependency, since
>> the
>> >> >Calcite module depends on it, and Calcite is going to stay for a
>> while =)
>> >> >2. AFAIK, the "bytecode" module is copied into the codebase only to
>> strip
>> >> >Guava away from it. We can remove this module, which will improve the
>> >> >maintainability of the project.
>> >> >3. We have some copy-paste of Guava code in the project. For example,
>> see
>> >> >this
>> >> ><
>> >>
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/blob/main/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/util/IgniteUtils.java#L136
>> >> >
>> >> >and this
>> >> ><
>> >>
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/blob/main/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/util/IgniteUtils.java#L428
>> >> >
>> >> >.
>> >> >4. Regarding security concerns, this report
>> >> ><
>> >>
>> https://www.cvedetails.com/product/52274/Google-Guava.html?vendor_id=1224
>> >> >
>> >> >shows no major vulnerability issues for the last three years.
>> >> >
>> >> >Taking these points into account, I propose to allow using Guava both
>> in
>> >> >production and test code and to add it as an explicit dependency.
>> >> >
>> >> >What do you think?
>> >> >
>> >> >--
>> >> >With regards,
>> >> >Aleksandr Polovtcev
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >With regards,
>> >Aleksandr Polovtcev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> With regards,
> Aleksandr Polovtcev
>


-- 
With regards,
Aleksandr Polovtcev

Re: [DISCUSSION] Send documentation feedback notifications to dev list

2021-08-09 Thread Ivan Pavlukhin 
Pavel,

> PS Ivan, links 2 and 3 are the same.

Thanks for noticing. 3 related to clean dev list should be
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/re24faf295e3081eac72276e12419be412423650a21eafe81ac5c7ff1%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E

2021-08-09 11:19 GMT+03:00, Anton Vinogradov :
> +1 to keeping the dev list clean.
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 11:00 AM Pavel Tupitsyn 
> wrote:
>
>> I agree, let's keep the dev list clean.
>> Automated notifications of any kind should not be sent to dev@i.a.o.
>>
>> PS Ivan, links 2 and 3 are the same.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 8:54 AM Ivan Pavlukhin 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Igniters,
>> >
>> > Recently documentation feedback notifications were set up. And
>> > currently destination for such notifications is dev list
>> > dev@ignite.apache.org. It was announced in [1]. A notification message
>> > itself looks as [2].
>> >
>> > Let's discuss if we all are fine with this notifications on dev list
>> > as much effort was spent for keeping dev list clean, e.g. [3]. For me
>> > personally these notifications are some kind of "noice" as I read the
>> > list on spare time.
>> >
>> > Please share your opinion! Formal vote will be started if needed.
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf6b0ee140239ae119c97fe4022316b4e2f5c9f06a677bace5033e313%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
>> > [2]
>> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rbd7c06f76559f46bc2872484529bc4fa1c503d705b6cc379156f0bb0%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
>> > [3]
>> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rbd7c06f76559f46bc2872484529bc4fa1c503d705b6cc379156f0bb0%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> >
>>
>


-- 

Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

Re: [Announcement] Apache Ignite 2.11 Code Freeze started

2021-08-09 Thread Ivan Daschinsky 
I suppose, that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15274 is a
blocker.
Fix is quite easy and straightforward

пн, 2 авг. 2021 г. в 03:11, Igor Sapego :

> Cherry-picked to release branch.
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 3:11 PM Alexey Gidaspov 
> wrote:
>
> > Ok, I think we should add [1] to 2.11 release. Can you cherry-pick it to
> > release branch?
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14815
> >
> > On 2021/07/30 02:25:25, Igor Sapego  wrote:
> > > I'm fine with any of these two solutions.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Igor
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 6:36 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> > > 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 <
> > olive.c...@gmail.com>
> > > > > 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 <
> > mmu...@apache.org>
> > > > > > 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 <
> > mmu...@apache.org>
> > > > > > 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 <
> > dpav...@apache.org>
> > > > > > 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" <
> > nizhi...@apache.org>
> > > > > > 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://i

Re: [Announcement] Apache Ignite 2.11 Code Freeze started

2021-08-09 Thread Maxim Muzafarov 
+1

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 16:27, Ivan Daschinsky  wrote:
>
> I suppose, that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15274 is a
> blocker.
> Fix is quite easy and straightforward
>
> пн, 2 авг. 2021 г. в 03:11, Igor Sapego :
>
> > Cherry-picked to release branch.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 3:11 PM Alexey Gidaspov 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, I think we should add [1] to 2.11 release. Can you cherry-pick it to
> > > release branch?
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14815
> > >
> > > On 2021/07/30 02:25:25, Igor Sapego  wrote:
> > > > I'm fine with any of these two solutions.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Igor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 6:36 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> > > > 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 <
> > > olive.c...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > 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 <
> > > mmu...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > 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 <
> > > mmu...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > 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 <
> > > dpav...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > 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" <
> > > nizhi...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > 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
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] Send documentation feedback notifications to dev list

2021-08-09 Thread Dmitry Pavlov 
0 from my side. Both ways have their own pros.

We can redirect to notifications@ list. issues@ seems to be too overloaded with 
all comments

And as an option we can leave it as is now, and take a look at how often 
feedback will arise.

Sicerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov

On 2021/08/09 05:54:07, Ivan Pavlukhin  wrote: 
> Igniters,
> 
> Recently documentation feedback notifications were set up. And
> currently destination for such notifications is dev list
> dev@ignite.apache.org. It was announced in [1]. A notification message
> itself looks as [2].
> 
> Let's discuss if we all are fine with this notifications on dev list
> as much effort was spent for keeping dev list clean, e.g. [3]. For me
> personally these notifications are some kind of "noice" as I read the
> list on spare time.
> 
> Please share your opinion! Formal vote will be started if needed.
> 
> [1] 
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf6b0ee140239ae119c97fe4022316b4e2f5c9f06a677bace5033e313%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
> [2] 
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rbd7c06f76559f46bc2872484529bc4fa1c503d705b6cc379156f0bb0%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
> [3] 
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rbd7c06f76559f46bc2872484529bc4fa1c503d705b6cc379156f0bb0%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
> 
> -- 
> 
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

[MTCGA]: new failures in builds [6122273] needs to be handled

2021-08-09 Thread dpavlov . tasks 
Hi Igniters,

 I've detected some new issue on TeamCity to be handled. You are more than 
welcomed to help.

 *New test failure in master 
IgniteTopologyValidatorGridSplitCacheTest.testTopologyValidatorWithCacheGroup 
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&testNameId=-3517804902867109324&branch=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=testDetails
 No changes in the build

 - Here's a reminder of what contributors were agreed to do 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute 
 - Should you have any questions please contact dev@ignite.apache.org 

Best Regards,
Apache Ignite TeamCity Bot 
https://github.com/apache/ignite-teamcity-bot
Notification generated at 04:48:34 10-08-2021