Hello! Thank you for the clarifications! Your change looks good to me now.
Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev вт, 11 сент. 2018 г. в 5:53, Roman Shtykh <rsht...@yahoo.com>: > Ilya, > > The "latest" version is the default, and resolved by > https://ignite.apache.org/latest which is used by our web site when a > user download the latest Ignite version. And I think this is the authority > to judge of the latest official release (pom.xml you suggest can have > SNAPSHOTs etc.). > Also, as I explained during our review sessions, ignite-mesos-2.6.0 is a > driver and doesn't mean you need to have Ignite 2.6.0. User can run any > version of Ignite he/she specifies. By default, it's "latest" but a user > can specify any version needed, even from a non-archive URL. > > In short, what we have now > 1. mesos driver (ignite-mesos-x.x.x) will use "latest" version by default > -> it will try to resolve the latest officially releases version of Apache > Ignite, find the closest mirror and download Ignite in a minute. If the > version resolution fails, we fall back to the slow apache archive (as you > suggest; in my opinion we better fail-fast instead of waiting for hours to > download, so the user can choose another download option (3)) > 2. If the user specifies the version explicitly, it goes to the slow > apache archive. > 3. The user can put ignite zip file on his/her http server and provide the > URL as a parameter to the driver, if options 1 and 2 don't work. > > As you see, there are 3 options. And I just fix the 1st one with > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9388 and don't change the > original logic (which I find reasonable) documented on our site -- I don't > see how it blocks anything. > > Roman Shtykh > > > On Monday, September 10, 2018, 6:16:15 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev < > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello! > > There's still two issues with the submission. > > The first one is that we're downloading "latest" version from preferred > mirror but a specified version, such as "2.6", we're also going to download > from "slow" archive.apache.org/dist. > That's a great limitation for this change, since most real deployments of > Apache Ignite will have their Ignite version pegged to a specific release. > But in this case there's no win in download speed. > *In my opinion it is a blocker.* > > The second one is that we can't download anything when we failed to > resolve "latest". My idea is that we should try and download last known > version in this case, which can be pushed to source from pom.xml, as we > already do with URLs. So if you could not resolve "latest" you will > download 2.7.0. > > Buuut, maybe it's not necessary, maybe we should just *discourage > "latest"*, which is in my opinion almost always a bad idea. > > WDYT? > > Regards, > -- > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > вс, 9 сент. 2018 г. в 5:47, Roman Shtykh <rsht...@yahoo.com>: > > Hi Ilya, > > Sorry, missed that. > Added now. > > -- > Roman Shtykh > > > On Thursday, September 6, 2018, 6:16:58 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev < > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello! > > The last of my requests still standing is that we should fall-back to > single URL download in case of error with 'latest' version. Everything else > looks good to me. > > Can we do that? I'm really worried that Apache API will go sour. > > Regards, > -- > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > чт, 6 сент. 2018 г. в 8:56, Roman Shtykh <rsht...@yahoo.com>: > > Hi Ilya, > > Thanks again. > > 1) Done. > 2) Used catch() for latest version. > > Please see my comments on github. > -- > Roman Shtykh > > > On Wednesday, September 5, 2018, 11:30:10 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev < > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello! > > I've left a new wave of replies. > > Basically, 1) let's keep DOWNLOAD_URL_PATTERN string value inlined so > that it will work even if build process is broken (would be useful for e.g. > developing out of IDE) > And also I urge you to catch() around new fragile Apache JSON API > resolving, and download the 'current' version instead, as defined by > ignite-mesos version. > > This is because this module is not under continuouos scrutiny so extra > care should be applied. > -- > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > вт, 4 сент. 2018 г. в 13:42, Roman Shtykh <rsht...@yahoo.com>: > > Thanks, Ilya! > I will check your comments, and discuss it at JIRA. > > -- > Roman Shtykh > > > On Tuesday, September 4, 2018, 7:17:53 p.m. GMT+9, Ilya Kasnacheev < > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello! > > IGNITE-9408 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9408> looks > good to me and may be merged right away. > > IGNITE-9388 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9388> needs > more work in my opinion, I have commented the PR. I also advice having test > for this functionality. > > Regards, > -- > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > вт, 4 сент. 2018 г. в 6:52, Roman Shtykh <rsht...@yahoo.com.invalid>: > > Igniters, > I would like Mesos integration update be included in the upcoming > release.Can anyone review prs for the following issues? > IGNITE-9388: mesos IgniteProvider tries to access obsolete ignite.run or > download from slow archiveIGNITE-9408: Update mesos version > > Roman Shtykh > > On Thursday, August 30, 2018, 9:25:43 p.m. GMT+9, Vyacheslav Daradur < > daradu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Igniters! > > I'm working on the following Service Grid tasks: > - IGNITE-8361 Use discovery messages for service deployment > - IGNITE-8362 Collect service deployment results asynchronously on > coordinator > - IGNITE-8363 Handle topology changes during service deployment > - IGNITE-8364 Propagate deployed services to joining nodes > - IGNITE-8365 Introduce service failure events > - IGNITE-3392 Propagate service deployment results from assigned nodes > to initiator > > Let's call them *phase 1* because the should be implemented together > (atomically). > > I do my best to finish phase 1 for including to 2.7 release. > > But I'm not sure that the solution will be fully completed till the > beginning of October. > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 7:18 PM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > Hell, Yakov > > > > I'm ok with your proposal. > > > > * Scope freeze - September 17 - We should have a full list of > tickets for 2.7 here. > > * Code freeze - October 01 - We should merge all 2.7 tickets to > master here. > > * Vote on RC1 - October 11. > > * Vote on release - October 15. > > > > В Ср, 29/08/2018 в 12:39 +0300, Yakov Zhdanov пишет: > > > Nikolay, > > > > > > I think we should have 2 weeks after code freeze which by the way may > > > include RC1 voting stage. This way I would like us to agree that > release > > > candidate should be sent to vote on Oct, 11th and we can release on > Oct, > > > 15th. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > --Yakov > > > > -- > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > >
