Hello, Igniters.
Today is a code freeze date but we still have 29 not merged tickets mapped to
2.7 release [1]
It means:
1. We should continue work on 2.7 release and merge remaining tickets
2. Anyone who can help with #1, please, do it.
3. RC1 and further release builds will be created after a
+1 from me.
В Вт, 09/10/2018 в 19:16 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет:
> Igniters, Nikolay,
>
> I've recently discovered an issue [1] which was causing test suite to quit
> on TC. The root cause of the issue was an incorrect handling of WAL
> archiver stop, which causes a failure propagated to the f
Igniters, Nikolay,
I've recently discovered an issue [1] which was causing test suite to quit
on TC. The root cause of the issue was an incorrect handling of WAL
archiver stop, which causes a failure propagated to the failure processor
and lead to a JVM halt on each node stop. This is a regression
Igniters,
Recently, I have filed an issue [1] that deals with possible hanging of WAL
logging. I will appreciate your thoughts on its severity. To make logging
hang two conditions should be satisfied: WAL mode is {{FSYNC}}, and WAL
archiving is disabled. Should we investigate and fix this immediat
Igniters,
I reviewed Spring Session integration [1] and propose to move it to the
next release. The reason is that current implementation has a number of
performance issues, had potential bugs which are yet to be covered with
tests, and possible lacks some features which other vendors like Hazelca
Ignite committers,
I have prepared a PR for 2.7 blocker [1]. Could anybody merge it to 2.7 and
master?
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9737
ср, 3 окт. 2018 г. в 14:02, Nikolay Izhikov :
> Alexey.
>
> Sorry, I lost link to IGNITE-9760 in this thread :)
>
> Thanks, for a clarifi
Helo, Dmitriy.
I looked at patch.
Seems it local for a ML module.
Is it's true I'm +1 to include it to 2.7.
В Чт, 04/10/2018 в 08:33 -0500, dmitrievanthony пишет:
> Hi, Yury, Nikolay.
>
> This issue reproduces in "TensorFlow on Apache Ignite" use cases. When user
> prepares training script (li
Hi, Yury, Nikolay.
This issue reproduces in "TensorFlow on Apache Ignite" use cases. When user
prepares training script (like official MNIST model
https://github.com/tensorflow/models/tree/master/official/mnist), runs it in
distributed standalone client mode (see this documentation
https://github.
Hello, Yuriy
What is consequences of this issue?
How user can reproduce it?
В Чт, 04/10/2018 в 15:02 +0300, Yuriy Babak пишет:
> Igniters,
>
> We have new ticket related with TensorFlow integration:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9788
>
> From my point of view this fix is impor
Igniters,
We have new ticket related with TensorFlow integration:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9788
>From my point of view this fix is important for release and I want to
include it to 2.7.
Any objections?
пн, 20 авг. 2018 г. в 21:22, Nikolay Izhikov :
> Hello, Igniters.
>
> I'
Hi Alexey,
Security is always mandatory for all Apache projects. So I agree we should
include.
Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov
чт, 4 окт. 2018 г. в 12:37, Alexey Kuznetsov :
> Hi, All!
>
> I found a bug with *IGNITE_MBEANS_DISABLED* system property.
> I created issue: IGNITE-9792 Setting system prop
Hi, All!
I found a bug with *IGNITE_MBEANS_DISABLED* system property.
I created issue: IGNITE-9792 Setting system property
*IGNITE_MBEANS_DISABLED* to true lead to NPE.
I think this one can be included into 2.7, because java docs
for IGNITE_MBEANS_DISABLED
claims that "*This may be helpful if M
Igniters,
We observe serious drop in SQL performance. Corresponding ticket with
"blocker" priority has been added to AI 2.7 scope [1].
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9784
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:02 PM Nikolay Izhikov wrote:
> Alexey.
>
> Sorry, I lost link to IGNITE-9760 in
Alexey.
Sorry, I lost link to IGNITE-9760 in this thread :)
Thanks, for a clarification.
В Ср, 03/10/2018 в 13:58 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет:
> Nikolay, both commits fixed a regression compared to ignite-2.6. First one
> was mentioned by Anton Kalashnikov before (java-level deadlock during
Nikolay, both commits fixed a regression compared to ignite-2.6. First one
was mentioned by Anton Kalashnikov before (java-level deadlock during WAL
flush), another - by Andrey Kuznetsov (NPE during a concurrent WAL flush).
--AG
ср, 3 окт. 2018 г. в 13:38, Nikolay Izhikov :
> Hello, Igniters.
>
Hi Igniters,
After a short chat with Vladimir I understood the concern, it should be a
regression, but not just a bug, which existed for years. It is the case of
all fixes related to WAL nowadays.
I can research a bit which ticket caused regression, but I see no reason to
do if we already have fi
Hello, Igniters.
Release scope is frozen.
Please, if you include some new issues in release - discuss it in this thread.
Alexey, can you, please, comment on including fix for IGNITE-9760, IGNITE-9761
in 2.7 branch.
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=commit;h=3355201f3e8cafd2
Nobody vetos anything, let's stop use this term unless some really
important problem is discussed.
At this point we are in situation when new tickets are still included into
the scope. All I want to ask is to stop including new tickets without
explaining why they should be in AI 2.7. Regression be
Nobody vetos anything, let's stop use this term unless some really
important problem is discussed.
At this point we are in situation when new tickets are still included into
the scope. All want to ask is to stop including new tickets without
explaining on why they should be in AI 2.7. Regression b
Nikolay,
this has nothing about scaring someone. Let me explain about Apache Way.
Voting -1 to release does not mean blocking it, release can't be vetoed.
Approving release is done by policy: majority approval. 3+1 binding and
more +1 than -1. Consensus approval is better but not mandatory.
Inst
Vladimir, Nikolay,
For sure, I'm not an experienced Ignite contributor, so I'm sorry for
intervening. I've just run the reproducer from [1] against ignite-2.6
branch and it has passed. So, it's not an legacy bug, we've brought it with
some change of 2.7 scope. Is it still ok to ignore the bug?
[1
Hello, Dmitriy.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your concern.
Vladimir just asks experienced Ignite contributor to *explain impact* of a bug.
Why are you scaring us with your "-1"?
Is it Apache Way to do so?
What should be done for you to return to a constructive discussion?
В Ср, 03/10/2018
Hi Igniters, Vladimir,
NPEs or hangs in WAL is a completely non-functional grid (if persistence
enabled).
I see no reasons to release 2.7 with such symptoms until we're sure it is
too rare/impossible to reproduce. But it seems it is not the case. I will
definitely vote -1 for the release if I'm a
Andrey, Anton,
How do you conclude that these tickets are blockers? What is the impact to
users and in what circumstances users can met them?
Note that we have many hundreds opened bugs, and yet we do not strive to
include them all, because bug != blocker.
So -1 from my side to including these t
I've caught a bug [1] in FsyncModeFileWriteAheadLogManager. It looks like a
release blocker to me.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9776
вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:14, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> Hi Anton,
>
> I definitely agree it is a blocker.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
> вт, 2 окт
Hi Anton,
I definitely agree it is a blocker.
Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov
вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 13:09, Anton Kalashnikov :
> Hi Igniters.
>
> I have one more possible blockers - deadlock in archiver -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9761. I almost fixed it.
> It seems it should be
Hi Igniters.
I have one more possible blockers - deadlock in archiver -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9761. I almost fixed it.
It seems it should be include to scope.
--
Best regards,
Anton Kalashnikov
02.10.2018, 00:08, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" :
> Thanks, got it.
>
> On Mon, Oct
Thanks, got it.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote:
> Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do my absolute best to finalize
> all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. I think most of the
> contributors doing the same.
>
> пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov :
Here I agree with Vladimir. Furthermore, I do my absolute best to finalize
all reviews in all 2.7 tickets I'm related to. I think most of the
contributors doing the same.
пн, 1 окт. 2018 г. в 23:03, Vladimir Ozerov :
> This is precisely the scope we have at the moment. All these tickets were
> co
This is precisely the scope we have at the moment. All these tickets were
considered carefully on whether to include them into AI 2.7 scope. I would
say that 10-15% of current tickets may be moved furhter.
Third of current tickets are features on their final review stages (e.g.
TDE, MVCC invoke, T
If this filter is for 2.7 release, then I do not believe all these tickets
will be closed. It would be nice to leave only "must-have" tickets in 2.7
and move the rest to 2.8.
D.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:02 AM Vladimir Ozerov
wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> Please use this filter, as it properly handles
Igniters,
Please use this filter, as it properly handles tickets without components:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=(project%20%3D%20%27Ignite%27%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20(%272.7%27)%20AND%20status%20NOT%20IN%20(Resolved%2C%20Closed)%20and%20(com
Hi Nikolay,
Thank you for announcing that we entered this new stage of release. I
believe it is a paramount thing to keep community members posted.
BTW, this link worked for me
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=(project%20%3D%20'Ignite'%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVe
Hello, Igniters.
I announce scope freeze for an Apache Ignite 2.7 release.
It means:
1. We add to 2.7 only critical bugs.
2. We merge to 2.7 branch only previously announces features.
3. I expect we should exclude or *MERGE ALL TASKS FOR 2.7 DUE TO OCTOBER 10*.
So the *October 10 is DEADLINE* fo
Agree with Andrey.
IGNITE-9723 will be merged to ignite-2.7 branch soon.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:56 PM Andrey Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> Igniters,
>
> There is an inaccuracy in critical worker termination detection, and I'm
> working on a fix right now, see [1]. Also, we have trivial yet important
> f
Igniters,
There is an inaccuracy in critical worker termination detection, and I'm
working on a fix right now, see [1]. Also, we have trivial yet important
fix [2], this one is ready to merge.
I deem both should get to 2.7. Any objections?
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9744
[2
Folks,
We can consider this thread as an almost healthy discussion about SG
inclusion to 2.7.
For the future, I encourage all Igniters to discuss things before agreement
on dev.list instead of trying to log 'some pre-build agreements' here. BTW
such logged 'agreements' are not always valid.
Dev
Hello, guys.
I moved SG tasks to 2.8.
В Сб, 29/09/2018 в 17:11 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> I fully support Dmitry's concerns. I do not see a single chance for Service
> Grid to be included into 2.7 scope, but we are still keeping hope alive.
> What for? Our experience shows, that any feature
I fully support Dmitry's concerns. I do not see a single chance for Service
Grid to be included into 2.7 scope, but we are still keeping hope alive.
What for? Our experience shows, that any feature involving consensus
algorithms typically take weeks to be finalized after initial public
review. Yes,
Dmitriy,
Hot redeployment and versioning will not be implemented in phase 1,
but it is scheduled once it is finished.
Here is an umbrella ticket [1] to track phase 1 scope.
It includes very few new features, but we completely rework component
to improve guarantees to be more reliable and we buil
I am not sure I can agree. SG redesign includes:
- hot redeployment
- versioning
In my experience, features like these take about 1 month to test properly
and fix all the bugs, including redeployment tests and restart tests on
larger topologies, together with overnight runs. If this type of testin
Nikolay, because I think you're a do'er, but not a commenter, like me, for
example, I can trust your opinion.
I will join review if I have spare cycles.
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 20:34, Denis Magda :
> Nikolay,
>
> Thanks for stepping in and giving more context. In general, I'm fully for
> your pro
Nikolay,
Thanks for stepping in and giving more context. In general, I'm fully for
your proposal below:
My vote goes to option *a*.
> I think we should release 2.7 with the bunch of new cool features.
> *AND* we should plan 2.8 release at the end of the year with SG redesign
> and MVCC stabilizat
Hello, Igniters.
I think we shouldn't put so many emotions in discussion of any contribution.
Even so big and important as SG redesign.
The crucial point we all agreed about: Service Grid redesign a big feature that
can significally improve Ignite.
We all want to have it in the product.
Let me
Even though I was not involved in the Service Grid 2.0 architectural or
development discussions, my guts feel that we need to allocate enough time
to test them through. It won't be just a fix or minor improvement,
Vyacheslav has been working on a tremendous task that seems to re-engineer
many aspec
Hi Dmitriy,
The design is aligned totally. The thread you mention was not named
properly.
It seems to me some community members are trying to take over the community
and lead it instead of doing.
As a member of the Apache community, I value Do-ocracy and power of those
who do, but not just disag
Dmitriy,
We agreed in the beginning of this thread that Service Grid changes are not
going to make the release because the community still did not approve the
design. Nothing has changed since. I have not seen any design discussions.
At this point, I have no confidence that the Service Grid change
Importance come from the fact that we agreed on these dates. Neither
community, nor implementors of the feature were against it. And community
already work hard to met that dates: a lot of people already aligned their
plans, a lot very important tickets were moved out of scope to met the
dates.
No
Hi Dmitriy, Vladimir,
I suggest we stop this nonsense with release dates-pushing because of some
open question.
Just because you disagreed with any include/exclude something into scope,
does not mean that whole community disagreed.
If folks will start a separate discussion with results of the re
If services is not ready, which it is not, then we should include them into
the next release. There is no need to force them into 2.7. I suggest we
move according to the schedule we all agreed on.
D.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:22 AM Dmitriy Pavlov
wrote:
> Yes, so correct statement is "community
I think if a commit does not lead to any test failure in the current
master, there are no reasons to revert the commit. If there are valid
scenarios which are failing, corresponding tests should be added and the
root cause should be fixed under a separate issue.
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:19, Dmitr
Yes, so correct statement is "community did not make any decisions about
services not go to 2.7/ services are out of scope".
If so, please forgive me my confusion.
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:19, Vladimir Ozerov :
> Exactly. So correct statement is “it is up to *community* to decide whether
> some
Hi Maxim,
Once 1) you are sure that commit is related to the failure, and 2) in case
contributors are not responding,
please let me know, probably we need to open one more separate topic about
revert.
Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:15, Maxim Muzafarov :
> Andrey, Dmitry,
>
Exactly. So correct statement is “it is up to *community* to decide whether
something goes to 2.7”.
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:11, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> No, it is up to the community to discuss after their review results.
>
> пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:09, Vladimir Ozerov :
>
> > Dmitriy,
> >
> > Did
Andrey, Dmitry,
> I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It looks
critical enough and can be a good candidate for fixing before 2.7 release.
I've found that commit [2] is also lead the exchange worker to hang in my
branch related to IGNITE-7196.
Not sure, I'm able to fix the
No, it is up to the community to discuss after their review results.
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:09, Vladimir Ozerov :
> Dmitriy,
>
> Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor of a single
> feature to decide whether release of all other features and fixes to be
> delayed?
>
> пт,
Dmitriy,
Did I read your words correctly that it is up to implementor of a single
feature to decide whether release of all other features and fixes to be
delayed?
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 11:00, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> My point we can wait a bit for services because
> 1 we are open-minded and we don't
My point we can wait a bit for services because
1 we are open-minded and we don't have outside pressure to do release in
October
2 and services it is not some new feature, which suddenly appeared in
autumn, it is a well known and important feature.
So it is up to Vyacheslav, Anton and Nikolay to
Dmitry,
Community agreement was to perform the release in October. Of course we can
wait a bit for services. Then we wait a bit for other cool features ready
by that time, then again and again, and release will never happen. And
while we are waiting for new features to come, already completerd fea
Vladimir, I'm not searching for enemy, and not fighting with you. I'm not
happy about cases when we are hurrying.
We can't fix test, fill ticket details, can't wait for contributions to
finish their tasks. It is not best idea to use experience from commercial
companies in open source. Are there
Hi Igniters!
As I have written about Service Grid before [1] I'm finalizing the
solution to be sure that implementation is reliable.
About including it in 2.7, if we talk that code freeze tomorrow then
the solution is not ready to merge yet.
I hope that prereviewers Anton Vinogradov and Nikolay I
Yes, I agree, NPE during WAL flush is definitely a blocker.
It is strange why the current test set did not fail after commit.
чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 21:45, Andrey Kuznetsov :
> Igniters,
>
> I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It looks
> critical enough, and can be a goo
Igniters,
I've bumped into a new bug in WAL manager recently, see [1]. It looks
critical enough, and can be a good candidate for fixing before 2.7 release.
Do you agree?
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9731
чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 19:45, Dmitriy Pavlov :
> I need Vhyacheslav's
I need Vhyacheslav's opinion to be absolutely sure what status is now.
We never committed to dates of release, as well. I don't quite understand
what can mean 'the community committed to doing/releasing something'.
About SG, I also concerned why such a big feature has quite a few
discussions on t
Folks,
Please stop looking for enemies everywhere. Just went through this thread
and search for "service" word.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Denis Magda wrote:
> >
> > Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid
> > inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to
>
> Denis, as PMC Chair, could you please control, that Service Grid
> inclusion/exclusion is discussed properly according to the Apache Way.
It's fine when committers/contributors have private discussions related to
a feature they've been working on. Not everything should go through the dev
list
Ok, let's wait for feedback from SG Author(s)/Reviewer(s) first. If it is
not ready, ok. But I thought it is almost done.
I apologize if I missed some discussion (it can happen), but
According to the statement "our current agreement"
I can suspect some members are making some sort of private agree
Dmitriy,
This is an outcome of current state of Service Grid - it is not ready. We
never committed to have it to 2.7. Our goal was to try to include it into
2.7.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM Dmitriy Pavlov
wrote:
> Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I missed it.
>
Could you please provide a reference to some thread? Probably I missed it.
чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:46, Vladimir Ozerov :
> Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This is a huge
> feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be able to
> review/fix/test it
Our current agreement is that Service Grid is out of scope. This is a huge
feature, which hasn't entered review stage so far, We will not be able to
review/fix/test it properly.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:32 PM Dmitriy Pavlov
wrote:
> I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 2
I agree, and I prefer four weeks for stabilization* (1 Oct - 29 Oct)
Do I understand it correctly: Service Grid is still in scope, isn't it? I
find it very important.
чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:28, Nikolay Izhikov :
> Hello, Vova.
>
> Thank you for clear release status.
> I'm +1 for your proposal
Hello, Vova.
Thank you for clear release status.
I'm +1 for your proposal.
чт, 27 сент. 2018 г., 18:25 Alexey Kuznetsov :
> Vova,
>
> Huge +1 to do a stabilization.
>
>
> --
> Alexey Kuznetsov
>
Vova,
Huge +1 to do a stabilization.
--
Alexey Kuznetsov
Please ignore. I missed the branch.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 5:53 PM Vladimir Ozerov
wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> Code Freeze date is tomorrow. Bad news is that we still have a number of
> important features not-yet-merged (of most important - some MVCC stuff,
> TDE, PHP/Python clients). Good news is t
Igniters,
Code Freeze date is tomorrow. Bad news is that we still have a number of
important features not-yet-merged (of most important - some MVCC stuff,
TDE, PHP/Python clients). Good news is that we made a good progress with
scope decrease. I propose the following release plan then:
1) By 30 S
Igniters,
Code Freeze date is tomorrow. Bad news is that we still have a number of
important features not-yet-merged (of most important - some MVCC stuff,
TDE, PHP/Python clients). Good news is that we made a good progress with
scope decrease. I propose the following release plan then:
1) By 30 S
Hello, Petr.
My suggestion is to migrate to a newer version of GPG and throw an error
message if one use old version.
В Пн, 24/09/2018 в 14:53 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет:
> I’ve checked the changes and they are good both on old and latest versions of
> Ubuntu.
>
>
> However, I’ve stumbled upon
I’ve checked the changes and they are good both on old and latest versions of
Ubuntu.
However, I’ve stumbled upon another problem — GPG: current release scripts do
not honour latest GPG versions.
I can introduce corresponding changes, but question is — should release script
check for GPG versi
Hello, Petr.
Seems that rpm build script doesn't work on a lates Ubuntu Linux.
I've created a ticket [1] and found a fix for it [2]
With one line fix rpm build is working under my environment.
Can you check fix on your environment?
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9665
[2] https
Hi, Nikolay
I’ve tested vote_3_step_1 and vote_3_step_2 scripts from [1] and they are OK.
My configuration:
- generated gnupg key (~/.gnupg)
- Ubuntu 16.04 (with latest updates)
- packages: subversion git unzip alien rpm fakeroot gcc dpkg-sig gnupg-agent
Please double check you environment fo
Hello, Igniters.
I ping assigners in all tickets hase been planned for 2.7 and work is started.
I plan to move all tickets in 'Open' state to 2.8 on Moday, 24 September.
Please, respond, if you have any objections.
В Ср, 19/09/2018 в 16:02 +0300, Andrey Gura пишет:
> Nikolay,
>
> since we talk
The file is in place:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/MIGRATION_GUIDE.txt
Tho, I think we could put something there.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
чт, 20 сент. 2018 г. в 17:39, Nikolay Izhikov :
> Hello, Igniters.
>
> I've started to write Wiki article for a future Release Managers
yep, someone can use his or her @gridgain address, even it is not best
practice and Apache recommends to avoid it. It is still an individual in
the Community.
I've checked the history of the ticket and there was a strange reassignment
in it. we'll try to find out if it is under review. Hopefully,
ok... thought I saw gridgain interaction in an email Will start a new
thread with my questions on test code or comment on Jira
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:39 AM Dmitriy Pavlov
wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Please be more specific, GridGain can't take part in the community, only
> individual contribut
Hi Paul,
Please be more specific, GridGain can't take part in the community, only
individual contributors can. So I don't understand which contributor was
pulling 9298.
Any feedback is appreciated, especially constructive, cause it helps in
developing a product in the right direction. But we can'
Dimitiry, Re: IGNITE-9298 ... this is my first contribution, don't know who
is reviewing the code, I did see that it was pulled by GridGain.
Additionally I was not happy about the test code, I followed what was there
before but it doesn't seem right.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:17 AM Dmitriy Pavlov
Hi,
As always, our constraint is a review. We as the community seems to agree
that review and patch commenting is a major contribution, but very few of
us doing a review, and 92 tickets are in Patch Available state.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Issues+waiting+for+review
Ev
Hello, Igniters.
Is there any specific reason why this ticket is removed from 2.7 scope?
I think this ticket is important for both usability and performance.
Without this ticket, we have to create an index manually identical to
primary key if we want to use SQL query.
https://issues.apache.org/ji
Nikolay,
since we talk about scope freeze all you need now just create
ignite-2.7 branch. We still can have tickets targeted to 2.7 release
in progress. So you shouldn't move tickets to 2.8 because they can be
targeted to 2.7 intentionally and will be merged to master and
ignite-2.7 branches.
On W
Hello, Igniters.
Vova, thank you for pointing this out.
I ask all community members to iterate over assigned tickets.
Please, move your tickets to 2.8 release if work is still in progress.
At the end of the day, I will do it by myself and tomorrow we should have
release scope prepared.
ср, 19 с
My point was not about code freeze, but about scope freeze, what means that
starting from this point AI 2.7 release should not receive any commits
which doesn't relate to it.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:55 AM Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> Vova,
>
> AFAIK, codefreeze was not announced yet.
> Correct m
Vova,
AFAIK, codefreeze was not announced yet.
Correct me in case I missed this.
Now, Nikolay finishing checks that he's able to perform release (everything
installed and properly configured).
So, I recommend him to mention this check here to solve any
misunderstanding in case some branches or ta
Anton,
What do you mean under "preparation to real 2.7". It is already real, we
reached formal code freeze phase we agreed on. At this point we need to
exclude non-2.7 commits, otherwise we will not be able to come to stable
branch in two weeks.
For this reason creating a branch for 2.7 at the mom
Hi Paul.
There are 2 PRs linked to that ticket. Who is reviewing your changes?
Branch for 2.7 is still master, so if your changes are reviewed and
accepted soon it will be in 2.7.
Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov
вт, 18 сент. 2018 г. в 16:22, Paul Anderson :
> Hi, may I ask for IGNITE-9298 to be incl
Hi, may I ask for IGNITE-9298 to be included in 2.7 pls
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:03 PM Nikolay Izhikov wrote:
> Hello, folks.
>
> Thanks for the comments.
>
> I will follow them.
>
> В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:31 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет:
> > Nikolay,
> >
> > 1) *Do not* create ignite-2.7 branc
Hello, folks.
Thanks for the comments.
I will follow them.
В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:31 +0300, Anton Vinogradov пишет:
> Nikolay,
>
> 1) *Do not* create ignite-2.7 branch until we're not started preparation to
> real 2.7.
> Use some temporary branch for this check instead, eg.
> ignite-2.7-release-
Nikolay,
1) *Do not* create ignite-2.7 branch until we're not started preparation to
real 2.7.
Use some temporary branch for this check instead, eg.
ignite-2.7-release-test
2) Please make sure you'll not cause real release actions (maven release
and so on).
Perform only vote_* steps.
3) Make sur
If it is an Ignite release, then it has to pass through the vote. If not,
then you can do the test without publishing or uploading the release.
D.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:18 PM Petr Ivanov wrote:
> Ok.
>
> In case of TC questions — ask me.
>
>
>
> > On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:16, Nikolay Izhikov
Ok.
In case of TC questions — ask me.
> On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:16, Nikolay Izhikov wrote:
>
> Hello, Petr.
>
> I want to make ignite-2.7 branch today.
> And execute release procedure based on this branch.
>
> However, ignite-2.7 branch will be copy of master until code freeze date.
>
> В Вт
Hello, Petr.
I want to make ignite-2.7 branch today.
And execute release procedure based on this branch.
However, ignite-2.7 branch will be copy of master until code freeze date.
В Вт, 18/09/2018 в 13:13 +0300, Petr Ivanov пишет:
> Will it be just a test or there is already ignite-2.7 branch?
>
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
