Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite 3.0.0-alpha3 RC1
The vote is successful with three binding +1 votes. -Val On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:21 AM Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > Val, > > Good point, let's upload nupkg files to SVN for both 2.x and 3.x RCs. > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:49 PM Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Pavel, > > > > Since it's possible to test packages locally as you described, we can > > simply upload them to SVN [1] for RC testing. Let's start doing this with > > the next release. > > > > I also assume this will be useful for both 2.x and 3.x, right? > > > > [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite > > > > -Val > > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 12:15 PM Pavel Tupitsyn > > wrote: > > > > > Igor, you can test the actual packages locally: > > > - Download artifacts [1] into a local folder > > > - dotnet add package Apache.Ignite --version 3.0.0-alpha3 --source > > > /my/folder > > > > > > There is no concept of staging on nuget.org, any publish is permanent. > > > We can probably publish a version with "-rc1" suffix for a release > > > candidate, let's try this next time. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/ignite3_Release_Build_DotnetBinaries/6223120?buildTab=artifacts#%2Fnuget > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 8:06 PM Valentin Kulichenko < > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Igor, > > > > > > > > As far as I understand, we can't upload the NuGet package anywhere, > > which > > > > is unfortunate. If you want to try the .NET client before the > release, > > > you > > > > can build from sources. > > > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 8:16 AM Igor Sapego > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sorry, > > > > > > > > > > I meant we need to publish the package as part of RC, so it can be > > > > > reviewed. > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > Igor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:34 AM Igor Sapego > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Val, > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we need to upload the nuget package we want to upload so > > the > > > > > > community > > > > > > would know what we are going to upload and can check that > > everything > > > is > > > > > > right. > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > Igor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 8:03 PM Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Pavel, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> You've mentioned in the ticket that "Note that NuGet, > > unfortunately, > > > > has > > > > > >> no > > > > > >> concept of "staging" (unlike Maven). A package with the given > > > version > > > > > can > > > > > >> be published only once, and it can't be undone. We can only > > publish > > > > the > > > > > >> packages after the successful vote." > > > > > >> > > > > > >> With that, will you be okay if we proceed with the release, and > > > upload > > > > > the > > > > > >> NuGet package after the vote is accepted? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We can then have a separate discussion on the overall packaging > > > > > approach. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -Val > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 9:57 AM Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > >> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Hi Pavel, > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > That's actually by design. The current packaging model assumes > > > that > > > > we > > > > > >> use > > > > > >> > Maven/NuGet to deliver binaries - both for servers side and > > client > > > > > >> side. In > > > > > >> > case you have any objections to the overall approach, we > surely > > > can > > > > > >> have a > > > > > >> > discussion, but I propose we do this separately after the > > release. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > However, it's great that you pointed this out as we indeed > don't > > > > have > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > .NET package deployed. I've created a blocker ticket for this: > > > > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15741 > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Java client is deployed to Maven staging and examples are > > > > > >> > fully-functional, so we are good on that part. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > -Val > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 9:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn < > > > > ptupit...@apache.org> > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> To clarify, Java thin client has the following features: > > > > > >> >> - Table API > > > > > >> >> - Key-value API > > > > > >> >> - JDBC driver > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> .NET thin client: > > > > > >> >> - Table API > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> I think all of this should be included in the binary release. > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:10 AM Pavel Tupitsyn < > > > > > ptupit...@apache.org> > > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > -1 (binding) > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > Java thin client and .NET thin client are missing from the > > > binar
[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Ignite 3.0.0-alpha3 RC1
Igniters, Apache Ignite 3.0.0-alpha3 RC1 has been accepted. 3 "+1" votes received: - Denis Magda (binding) - Saikat Maitra (binding) - Pavel Tupitsyn (binding) No "0" or "-1" votes. Vote thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/raf7259e6ee18ae034ee7d613ba4250f2a2da1fd974ea49841625a6de%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E -Val
Re: [VOTE] Create separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3
I think Denis has a point in a sense that we can try other solutions first, and then come back to discussing separate projects if there are still issues. That said, although the vote can technically be accepted, I'm inclined to cancel it at this point due to the controversy. I will also resurrect the discussion in the original thread. Thanks everyone for participating! -Val On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 8:11 AM Andrey Gura wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 8:16 PM Pavel Tupitsyn > wrote: > > > > -1 > > > > We have already started using the existing JIRA and Confluence. > > There are lots of tickets, IEPs, and commits interlinked with each other. > > Introducing a new JIRA and Confluence will cause a huge mess. > > > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:57 PM Denis Magda wrote: > > > > > Val, > > > > > > As we discussed earlier, I don't fully support this idea but if what > you > > > propose is the only reasonable and efficient way to carry on with > Ignite 3 > > > and 2 development efforts, then I trust your word. But even if this > vote > > > passes I still would encourage you to experiment with the alternative > - a > > > mandatory "Architecture" field in JIRA that requires to pick between > > > "Ignite 2" and "Ignite 3". Talk to the ASF INFRA team, there still > might be > > > the way to keep a single JIRA project and simplify the development > efforts. > > > > > > - > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 3:03 AM Dmitriy Pavlov > wrote: > > > > > > > -0 from my side. > > > > > > > > That's fine if we have a separate project. > > > > But since the mission and the statement of community is the same, I > tend > > > to > > > > see 2&3 as the same project. The only difference is that 3 was > started > > > > from scratch (from the code point of view). > > > > > > > > ср, 6 окт. 2021 г. в 00:23, Maxim Muzafarov : > > > > > > > > > - 0 from me. > > > > > > > > > > This is OK if the projects are different, but not OK if they are > > > > > sharing the same version history. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 13:39, Andrey Mashenkov > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 5 окт. 2021 г., 13:33 Юрий : > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 5 окт. 2021 г. в 02:52, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Community, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As discussed in [1], I would like to propose the creation of > a > > > > > separate > > > > > > > > Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are developed in parallel in separate > > > repos, > > > > > so we > > > > > > > > need a clear separation in other tools as well - this will > help > > > to > > > > > > > > streamline the development process. Please refer to the > > > discussion > > > > > for > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > details. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rdcad3fc64b9f3a848c93089baae2bee1124a97869a94f4a04dd80fdf%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Voting options: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- +1 - Agree with the suggestion > > > > > > > >- 0 - Don't care much about the suggestion > > > > > > > >- -1 - Disagree with the suggestion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a majority vote. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Voting ends in 72 hours, at 5pm PDT on October 7: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.timeanddate.com/counters/fullscreen.html?mode=a&iso=20211007T17&year=2021&month=10&day=7&hour=17&min=0&sec=0&p0=224 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[CANCEL][VOTE] Create separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3
Cancelling the vote due to controversial opinions. We will look for alternative solutions. -Val
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3
Folks, Since there are controversial opinions regarding the topic, I've cancelled the vote and would like to resurrect the discussion. There are a couple of items that I would like to hear your opinions on. 1. I still propose to have a separate Confluence space for Ignite 3. This makes total sense to me - Ignite 2 and 3 have such different architectures, that mixing their internal documentations is really confusing. The same goes for IEPs. 2. If we create a mandatory field to Jira as we discussed, what should be the name? Current suggestions are "Architecture" and "Generation". Are there any other ideas? Please let me know your thoughts. -Val On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Ivan Pavlukhin wrote: > 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 > > 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 : > >> > 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 > 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 > >> 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 > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt > >> >
