Mikhail Petrov created IGNITE-13708:
---
Summary: Add thin client support for Spring Transactions.
Key: IGNITE-13708
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13708
Project: Ignite
Iss
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
> 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,
>
>
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
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,
Ivan Bessonov created IGNITE-13709:
--
Summary: Control.sh API - status
Key: IGNITE-13709
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13709
Project: Ignite
Issue Type: Sub-task
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
Igor Seliverstov created IGNITE-13710:
-
Summary: Calcite integration. Fix or to union rule logic
Key: IGNITE-13710
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13710
Project: Ignite
Hi Igniters,
I've detected some new issue on TeamCity to be handled. You are more than
welcomed to help.
*New Critical Failure in master Platform C++ CMake (Linux)
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/IgniteTests24Java8_PlatformCPPCMakeLinux?branch=%3Cdefault%3E
No changes in
Hi Igniters,
I've detected some new issue on TeamCity to be handled. You are more than
welcomed to help.
*Test with high flaky rate in master
ZookeeperDiscoverySegmentationAndConnectionRestoreTest.testConnectionRestore_Coordinator3
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=Ign
Hi Saikat,
Please go ahead with the merge. Do we need to publish this for the Ignite
2.9 docs at some point? Guess, after the extensions are released under
different names.
-
Denis
On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 9:57 AM Saikat Maitra
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As discussed I have updated the PR
> https://gith
Hi Igniters,
I've detected some new issue on TeamCity to be handled. You are more than
welcomed to help.
*Test with high flaky rate in master
GridCacheRabalancingDelayedPartitionMapExchangeSelfTest.test
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&testNameId=940
Hi Denis,
My thoughts are that these README.txt files will be published as part of
source releases for Ignite Extensions.
Regards,
Saikat
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 5:28 PM Denis Magda wrote:
> Hi Saikat,
>
> Please go ahead with the merge. Do we need to publish this for the Ignite
> 2.9 docs at
Got it. Didn't pay attention that those changes were in the readme.txt
files.
Are you adjusting the docs on the website as well? I bet you were
submitting a pull-request earlier.
-
Denis
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:31 PM Saikat Maitra
wrote:
> Hi Denis,
>
> My thoughts are that these README.txt
14 matches
Mail list logo
