[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14290) Implement Schema desciptor.

Andrey Mashenkov created IGNITE-14290: - Summary: Implement Schema desciptor. Key: IGNITE-14290 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14290 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Bug

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

Maxim, This proposal goes against [1], as I understand. Ignite 3.0 development is going on in [2] [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Ignite-3-0-development-approach-td49922.html [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3 On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 11:04 AM Nikolay Izhikov

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14291) Implement user class mappers.

Andrey Mashenkov created IGNITE-14291: - Summary: Implement user class mappers. Key: IGNITE-14291 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14291 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Improv

Re: Apache Ignite 3.x: order in repository

>For example, by enforcing that all changes are merged only through PRs. That, however, means that all contributors are forced to work with GitHub, which is not necessarily a great thing. I think we had this flow in mind when Ignite was started. I don't see any issue with forking unless prs can b

Re: IEP-68: Thin Client Data Streamer

Alex, I did not include this for two reasons: 1) Existing thick API behavior is very confusing and counter-intuitive: it returns a Future that won't complete unless you call more APIs. I've seen multiple users doing this: await streamer.Add(1, 1); await streamer.Add(2, 2); This code hangs - the

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

Hi Pavel, I don't think the `against` is the right word here. Those changes must be released for sure, however, I don't think it good for the current state of the Ignite codebase to `lock` the 3.0 version for years without any guarantees. Probably, we should assign the right Ignite version for th

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14292) Change permissions required to create/destroy caches in GridRestProcessor

Andrey Kuznetsov created IGNITE-14292: - Summary: Change permissions required to create/destroy caches in GridRestProcessor Key: IGNITE-14292 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14292

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

Hello! 0. I am accustomed with major.minor.maintenance schema. Does it make any difference? 2. What's `lock'? 3. I don't see why there would be implicit PDS compatibility between any X.0.0 and Y.0.0, X != Y. 4. I think this is a sensible approach. 5. Since ignite-3 seems to be a separate repo ATM,

Re: Minor PR

Hello! You can use MTCGA to check those runs, such as https://mtcga.gridgain.com/pr.html?serverId=apache&suiteId=IgniteTests24Java8_RunAll&branchForTc=pull/8845/head&action=Latest This one looks OK, I will merge. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev пн, 8 мар. 2021 г. в 10:57, Atri Sharma : > Hello,

Re: Minor PR

Thank you! On Tue, 9 Mar 2021, 21:46 Ilya Kasnacheev, wrote: > Hello! > > You can use MTCGA to check those runs, such as > > https://mtcga.gridgain.com/pr.html?serverId=apache&suiteId=IgniteTests24Java8_RunAll&branchForTc=pull/8845/head&action=Latest > > This one looks OK, I will merge. > > Rega

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14293) .NET: AffinityKey does not work

Pavel Tupitsyn created IGNITE-14293: --- Summary: .NET: AffinityKey does not work Key: IGNITE-14293 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Bug

Re: IGNITE-2399 : Asynchronous Acquire method in IgniteSemaphore

Gentle ping On Mon, 8 Mar 2021, 13:51 Atri Sharma, wrote: > Hi All, > > I would like to start a discussion around IGNITE-2399. > > Background: The typical use of IgniteSemaphore consists of acquiring > the semaphore, performing the task and releasing the semaphore. This > JIRA proposes a new met

Re: [CANCEL] [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite 2.10.0 RC1

Can we include the fix for this as well? I'm working on it. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293 On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 9:18 PM Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > Folks, > > The vote cancelled. The following issues need to be addressed: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14284 >

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

Maxim, What you propose is 1) Take Ignite 2.x, remove some deprecated features, and release that as Ignite 3.0 2) Much later, release what is being worked on in ignite-3 as Ignite 4.0 or 5.0 Do I understand this correctly? On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 7:15 PM Ilya Kasnacheev wrote: > Hello! > > 0.

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

Ilya, > 0. I am accustomed with major.minor.maintenance schema. Does it make any > difference? There is no difference without a small note that from my point of view minor releases 2.7 > 2.8 > 2.9 by the amount of changes are not so 'minor'. > 2. What's `lock'? I'm talking about some public an

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

Pavel, > 2) Much later, release what is being worked on in ignite-3 as Ignite 4.0 or > 5.0 Yes, you're right. On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 19:41, Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > > Ilya, > > > 0. I am accustomed with major.minor.maintenance schema. Does it make any > > difference? > > There is no difference

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

-1 We have agreed on a direction for 3.0 [1], no need to change it. [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Ignite-3-0-development-approach-td49922.html On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 7:42 PM Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > Pavel, > > > 2) Much later, release what is being worked on

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

Pavel, > We have agreed on a direction for 3.0 [1], no need to change it. Thank you for sharing the link, but there is no agreement on that thread. The Community even not vote in that direction, so I think we can consider another option here. On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 19:46, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: >

Re: [CANCEL] [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite 2.10.0 RC1

Pavel, Sure, let's wait a couple of days for this fix too. Please, let me know when it will be ready. If it takes a long time to fix it I propose to release changes with `set of known issues`. On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 19:23, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > > Can we include the fix for this as well? I'm wor

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

-1. Removing some deprecated features and releasing it as Ignite 3.0 doesn't make sense to me. This should be done in Ignite 2.X, but mostly (except MVCC) looks like a waste of time to me. Such a release has no value for a user, because actually it's 2.X. Because 3.0 is started from scratch, it

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

Folks, Sharing the release status: .NET: AffinityKey does not work - In-Progress https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293 sqlline: `Property "url" is required' - Patch Available https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14284 sqllline: `Bad history file syntax!' - Resolved https:/

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

Alexei, Thank you for sharing details with the progress in the ignite-3 development with the Community. I would like to believe in the best with the distribution database development, but please do not forget our previous experience with the 2.x version: - it took years to make the Ignite produc

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

Hello, Alexei Thanks for feedback. > Removing some deprecated features and releasing it as Ignite 3.0 doesn’t make > sense to me. > This should be done in Ignite 2.X, but mostly (except MVCC) looks like a > waste of time to me. But we have a big wish list that we want to remove from Ignite in

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14294) .NET: ClientServerCompatibilityTest is flaky

Pavel Tupitsyn created IGNITE-14294: --- Summary: .NET: ClientServerCompatibilityTest is flaky Key: IGNITE-14294 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14294 Project: Ignite Issue T

Azure Cloud IP Finder

Atri, Let's discuss the subj together with the community. Ignite already supports AWS [1] and GCE [2] IP Finders out of the box, but the Azure one is still missing. I can confirm that the demand exists, and rather frequently, I see developers asking for an Azure-native IP finder for Ignite. Atri,

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

Folks, You all are going in circles, and the fact that we started another discussion thread in addition to the following one [1] won't help to bring us together. Presently it's black and white, polarized opinions. Go and talk. Verbally. Come up with a common ground. [1] http://apache-ignite-deve

Re: IGNITE-2399 : Asynchronous Acquire method in IgniteSemaphore

Hi Atri, First and foremost, we need to clarify the API for this functionality. There are two options presented in the ticket, but no clear decision about which one should be used. I personally think that the original signature (the one in the ticket description) makes more sense, but it looks lik

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

Hi Maxim, I disagree with the suggestions. Several community members have already pointed out the discussion about Ignite 3.0 [1]. During that discussion, we did agree on the scope of the changes for 3.0, as well as the general direction for the product. The new repo was created not to "develop fr

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

Hello! Unless we do extra checks for Windows environment, I suggest merging IGNITE-14284 Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev вт, 9 мар. 2021 г. в 20:26, Maxim Muzafarov : > Folks, > > > Sharing the release status: > > .NET: AffinityKey does not wor