Rather strange, cause the repository on GitHub is only a mirror of Apache's
GitBox.
Although — I guess Apache applied the same policy to its repositories, if not
was it's author...
> On 22 Dec 2020, at 13:34, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
>
> Ivan, it is the new GitHub default
>
> "On Oct. 1, 2020,
Pavel, thanks for explanation!
2020-12-22 13:34 GMT+03:00, Pavel Tupitsyn :
> Ivan, it is the new GitHub default
>
> "On Oct. 1, 2020, any new repositories you create will use main as the
> default branch, instead of master" [1]
>
> [1]
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with
Ivan, it is the new GitHub default
"On Oct. 1, 2020, any new repositories you create will use main as the
default branch, instead of master" [1]
[1]
https://www.zdnet.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-main-starting-next-month/
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 1:12 PM Ivan Pavlukhin wrote:
> Als
Also I noticed that ignite-3 repository has "main" but not "master"
branch. Who can shed light on this? Did not find an explanation in
this thread.
2020-12-22 13:09 GMT+03:00, Ivan Pavlukhin :
> I noticed some free-from commit messages in ignite-3 repository. I
> think we should use ticket-based w
I noticed some free-from commit messages in ignite-3 repository. I
think we should use ticket-based workflow and commit messages as
usual.
[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/commits/main
2020-12-21 10:55 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov :
> There is no problem to have both in new repository, if skilled
There is no problem to have both in new repository, if skilled enthusiast will
take over that job.
I guess we will stick to Maven for time being but development of Gradle-based
building system can be done in parallel.
I can even add corresponding development build configurations for TeamCity, or
Hi Ivan,
There was a very brief discussion around this. Basically, it looks like
switching from Maven to something else is not going to bring much value,
but at the same time will be quite demanding because the community has much
more experience with Maven. However, I would say that it is still
de
Hi Igniters,
Forgive me that I am not reading dev list carefully these days. Was it
explicitly decided that Maven should be used as a build system for
Ignite 3? As there is a new repository we possibly can update our
build tools as well. What do you think?
2020-12-17 22:45 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kul
Hi Dmitriy,
I don't think there is any reason for concern at this point. The community
agreed on the scope of the changes for 3.0 - it is described on Wiki. The
scope is quite big, so it is clear that 2.x and 3.x will have to exist in
parallel for a significant amount of time, so we need a place w
Folks, I'm a little bit concerned about the simultaneous
- existence of the repo https://github.com/apache/ignite-3 and PRs for that
repo
- and a couple of downvotes from PMC members.
Is it all fine here? Was there any vote /discussion where it was discussed
and consensus approved? What is the sta
I don't believe Java 7 was LTS, and I hope that others will have upgraded long
before that. If that is the release timeframe for 3.0, then I suppose that
would makes sense, I would still doubt that people would be going newer than
java 11, just my opinion of what I'm seeing.
Regards
~adam
Adam
Hello!
I guess Ignite 3.0 will be ready for production use somewhere in 2022,
realistically. By that time, Java 8 will be long enough out of support so
that most companies will actually forbid its use, WRT vulnerabilities et
all.
After all we have managed to upgrade from Java 7 to Java 8 and only
So just one bit to consider... Are there features that you need to use in these
newer versions of java? Or are we just updating to stay current? The reason I
ask is that there are still lots of people in an enterprise space that are
beholden to having to support legacy JAVAEE supported applicati
Hi, Val.
Thanks for comments.
Let me explain some ambiguous points.
> [Val] What do we use Ant tasks for? I'm sure we do use them a lot for
> release packaging, but it will apparently be significantly simplified. Are
> there any other cases?
We have ant tasks for C++ / .NET version changing (i
Petr,
You have some great points! My comments are below.
-Val
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 4:28 AM Petr Ivanov wrote:
> More or less, unless we specifically forbid that, I guess
>
> However there is bigger concern: JDK 15 is STS, so after half of a year it
> will be out of support and no major prod
Hello!
One can still submit a PR which mines bitcoin and run tests on it. CI/CD
configuration alongside code does not solve the issue that any user may run
code on TC.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
пт, 27 нояб. 2020 г. в 16:48, Petr Ivanov :
> > Storing CI/CD code (yaml definitions for Travis/A
> Storing CI/CD code (yaml definitions for Travis/Azure/GH Actions, Jenkins
> pipelines, etc) in the same repo is very common.
> Secrets are stored separately (e.g. GitHub secrets), TeamCity probably has
> a similar feature.
My main security concern — anyone, including third-party person without
> migrating to 'CI/CD as a Code'
Huge +1 for this.
> where should the code be stored ..
> alongside project's code (can be possible security hole)
Storing CI/CD code (yaml definitions for Travis/Azure/GH Actions, Jenkins
pipelines, etc) in the same repo is very common.
Secrets are stored separa
More or less, unless we specifically forbid that, I guess
However there is bigger concern: JDK 15 is STS, so after half of a year it will
be out of support and no major production team will use that JDK in their
environment.
I would stick to JDK 11 as it is LTS at least until JDK17, plus — a lot
If we use Java15 for development, can the resulting package be used from a
Java11 app (the latest LTS)?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 7:51 PM Andrey Mashenkov
wrote:
> Jave15 looks awesome.
>
> * Hidden classes [1] can be used by codegenerators.
> * Records [2] can replace boilerplate code like Ignite
Jave15 looks awesome.
* Hidden classes [1] can be used by codegenerators.
* Records [2] can replace boilerplate code like IgniteBiTuple, GridTupleX.
[1] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/371
[2] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/384
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:38 PM Alexey Zinoviev
wrote:
> Java 15 is b
Java 15 is better, VarHandles, ForeignMemory access and so on.
In both cases, I support the Java version 11 and higher for the development!
вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:21, Andrey Mashenkov :
> Let's add maven plugins for sanity checks at the early stage.
> I've created a ticket for this [1].
>
>
Let's add maven plugins for sanity checks at the early stage.
I've created a ticket for this [1].
Also, I've found initial pom.xml has a target version Java 8.
Do we intend to move to Java 11 (or may be next LTS) and drop Java 8 in
Ignite 3.0?
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-137
Folks,
I went ahead and created the repository [1]. I also configured a TeamCity
project [2] that runs all available JUnit tests on every PR creation or
update. It also sends the status update to GitHub so that it's reflected in
the PR itself so that we can do merges directly from GitHub. Basic st
Thanks, guys. It looks like we are much closer to the consensus now. I
totally on board with the plan, but I would also like to address the
short-term needs. As I've already mentioned earlier, there are several
active IEPs, but we still don't have even a preliminary technical process
for working on
Good,
I think we have an intermediate agreement on the scope and significance of
the changes we want to make. I suggest creating separate discussion streams
and calls for each of the suggested topics so that:
- It is clear for the community what is the motivation of the stream
(this include
Sergey.
> pay our (already huge) technical debt,
Can you, please, make your statement more specific?
What specific points of technical debt do we have?
I think we should write it down and solve the issues step by step.
> 16 нояб. 2020 г., в 14:28, Sergey Chugunov
> написал(а):
>
> Igniters,
Igniters,
I agree that create or not create is not a question, rephrasing
Shakespeare.
My main point is that developing new features on top of old 2.x-style
architecture is a bad idea. We will write the code and spend some time
stabilizing it (which is expected and fine). But then, when we finall
> Let's indeed focus on Sergey's suggestions on the design->development
> approach.
+1
> - API & configuration cleanup
> - New management tool
> - Schema-first approach
> - New replication infrastructure
+1.
> 16 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:40, Alexey Goncharuk
> написал(а):
>
> Folks,
>
>
Folks,
I think we are overly driven away by the phrase 'new repo' rather than the
essence of my suggestion. We can keep developing in the same repo, we can
even keep developing in the master branch. My point is that Ignite 3.0 is a
chance to move on with the architecture, so if we really want to m
I'm -1 for creating a new repo.
Also I support Maxim's plan for 3.0
пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:50, Maxim Muzafarov :
> Val,
>
>
> Why *creating a new repo* is the main point we faced with? Would it be
> better to discuss the components design approach and scope management
> first suggested by Serg
Val,
Why *creating a new repo* is the main point we faced with? Would it be
better to discuss the components design approach and scope management
first suggested by Sergey Chugunov? I doubt that new repo will solve
move us forward.
Currently, I'm -1 to create a new repo with the inputs above.
I
>> b. Implement IEP-61 - Common Replication Infrastructure
I suppose, that this is the main cause of the current discussion.
I hardly believe that this activity can be done without at least creating a
completely new branch.
пт, 13 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:12, Nikolay Izhikov :
> My suggestion:
>
> 1. R
My suggestion:
1. Reduce Ignite3 scope to the following:
a. Delete all deprecated API and support of obsolete internal protocols.
b. Implement IEP-61 - Common Replication Infrastructure
c. Implement new Ignite management tool ignitectl as suggested during
Ignite3 discussio
Hello, Valentin.
> Nikolay, Maxim, are you OK with this route?
-1 to have another repo for Ignite3 development.
> 13 нояб. 2020 г., в 03:04, Valentin Kulichenko
> написал(а):
>
> Folks,
>
> We already have multiple IEPs for Ignite 3.0, and as far as I know, there are
> contributors that wou
Folks,
We already have multiple IEPs for Ignite 3.0, and as far as I know, there
are contributors that would like to work on them (or probably already
started). That said, we should make a decision as soon as possible.
At this point, it doesn't seem that there are any strong objections to the
tec
Maxim,
2.x and 3.x will have to coexist for some time - I don't see how we can
avoid this considering the set of proposed changes. That said, we
effectively will need to have two "masters" - one for each major version.
Master for 3.x can technically be a branch in the existing repo, but having
a s
Sergey,
Your summary makes sense to me.
However, how we come up from *Development transparency* to *create a
separate public repository dedicated for 3.0*? For me *development
transparency* is about making changes in the master branch. These
changes will definitely be seen by all the Ignite dev
Makes sense to me.
вт, 10 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:47, Sergey Chugunov :
> Igniters,
>
> I thought over Friday meeting ideas and concerns and summarized them in
> these three points:
>
>
>1. *Components design unification approach.* New proposed components
>will be developed by different contri
Igniters,
I thought over Friday meeting ideas and concerns and summarized them in
these three points:
1. *Components design unification approach.* New proposed components
will be developed by different contributors, but they need to be unified
and should integrate with each other easily
Here are the slides from Alexey Goncharuk. Let's think this over and
continue on Monday:
https://go.gridgain.com/rs/491-TWR-806/images/Ignite_3_Plans_and_development_process.pdf
чт, 5 нояб. 2020 г. в 11:13, Anton Vinogradov :
> Folks,
>
> Should we perform cleanup work before (r)evolutional chang
Folks,
Should we perform cleanup work before (r)evolutional changes?
My huge proposal is to get rid of things which we don't need anyway
- local caches,
- strange tx modes,
- code overcomplexity because of RollingUpgrade feature never attended at
AI,
- etc,
before choosing the way.
On Tue, Nov 3,
Ksenia, thanks for scheduling this on such short notice!
As for the original topic, I do support Alexey's idea. We're not going to
rewrite anything from scratch, as most of the components are going to be
moved as-is or with minimal modifications. However, the changes that are
proposed imply seriou
Pavel, all the interesting points will be anyway published here in English
(as the principal "if it's not on devlist it doesn't happened" is still
relevant). This is just a quick call for a group of developers. Later we
can do a separate presentation of idea and discussion in English as we did
for
Kseniya,
Thanks for scheduling this call.
Do you think we can switch to English if non-Russian speaking community
members decide to join?
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:32 PM Kseniya Romanova
wrote:
> Let's do this community discussion open. Here's the link on zoom call in
> Russian for Friday 6 PM:
Let's do this community discussion open. Here's the link on zoom call in
Russian for Friday 6 PM:
https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/274360378/
вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 12:49, Nikolay Izhikov :
> Time works for me.
>
> > 3 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:40, Alexey Goncharuk
> написал(а)
Time works for me.
> 3 нояб. 2020 г., в 12:40, Alexey Goncharuk
> написал(а):
>
> Nikolay,
>
> I am up for the call. I will try to explain my reasoning in greater detail
> and will be glad to hear the concerns. Will this Friday, Nov 6th, work?
>
> вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 10:09, Nikolay Izhikov
Nikolay,
I am up for the call. I will try to explain my reasoning in greater detail
and will be glad to hear the concerns. Will this Friday, Nov 6th, work?
вт, 3 нояб. 2020 г. в 10:09, Nikolay Izhikov :
> Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
>
> > 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupit
+1 on having a separate repo. Make the work cleaner and more effective.
--
Nikita Ivanov
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 11:09 PM Nikolay Izhikov wrote:
> Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
>
> > 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupitsyn
> написал(а):
> >
> >> not intend to rewrite everyt
Igniters, should we have a call for this topic?
> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 18:53, Pavel Tupitsyn написал(а):
>
>> not intend to rewrite everything from scratch
>
>> Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved to Ignite 3
>> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
>
> Alexey, thank you for the
> not intend to rewrite everything from scratch
> Every single test from Ignite 2.x should be moved to Ignite 3
> regardless of how we choose to proceed.
Alexey, thank you for the explanation, this addresses all of my concerns.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:43 PM Andrey Mashenkov
wrote:
> Hi, I
Hi, Igniters.
* AFAIU, we need a new repo if we want to apply different restrictions to
pull requests,
otherwise I see no difference for myself.
E.g. make static analysis (do we have?), compile, styles, and javadoc
checks mandatory.
I think that relaxed requirements here will lead to bad product
Hello!
In my opinion, what you are actually proposing is writing a new
IMDG/distributed database.
I'm not sure why one would assume that this new product will be
particularly successful with users. We have some very good developers out
there now, but some of the people who actually wrote Ignite 2
Nikolay, Pavel,
Thanks for the feedback! First of all, I wanted to stress that I do not
intend to rewrite everything from scratch (I never used this phrase). There
are significant parts of code that would be moved with minimal
modifications. Second, I never said that we will get rid of the old tes
1. Rewriting from scratch is never a good idea.
We don't want to follow the path of Netscape and lose all our users
by the time we have a working 3.0 [1]
2. Not sure about new repo - seems like some pain and no gain, what's the
problem with a branch?
3. We should keep existing integration tests w
Hello, Alexey.
I think that «rewriting from scratch» approach has a high risk to make new
features unusable.
At the time Ignite2 was started no-one wants to do bad UX or bad features.
Nevertheless, it happen.
I think we can avoid it with the Ignite3 and successors if we will move step by
step
Alexey,
Do we have any estimates of how fast we'll be able to gain production-ready
AI 3.0 in case of a "new repo" choice?
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 2:01 PM Alexey Goncharuk
wrote:
> Nikolay,
>
> What new features are we planning to implement for Ignite 2.x? I think once
> we commence working on I
Nikolay,
What new features are we planning to implement for Ignite 2.x? I think once
we commence working on Ignite 3.0, we should gradually cease the activity
on Ignite 2.x to mere bugfixes because such parallel development will be
overwhelming regardless of how we choose to proceed.
пн, 2 нояб.
To be clear:
> I would suggest creating a new repository for Ignite 3.0 (perhaps, a new
> clean branch, but a new repo looks nicer to me) and a new Ignite 3.0 TeamCity
> project.
+1 for new Team City project.
+1 for new branch for Ignite3.
-1 for new repo.
> 2 нояб. 2020 г., в 13:35, Nikolay
Hello, Alexey.
I think it will hurt our project more than help.
Developing new features for 2 separate branches with the different APIs and
internal structure is overwhelming
Maybe we should relax a bit requirements for Ignite3?
Maybe we should move step by step and make Ignite3 with new configu
60 matches
Mail list logo
