Will it be just a test or there is already ignite-2.7 branch? Fabric removal related TC modifications are not ready yet, and code is not in master.
> On 18 Sep 2018, at 13:07, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hello, Igniters. > > I want to start and release procedures and make an RC1 build. > > It has a 2 intention: > > 1. I want to walk through all release steps to make sure they all works for > me. > So I will be fully ready on release date. > > 2. We have updated some dependencies in 2.7 and we need to make sure binary > build is still workable. > > Any objections? > > > В Пт, 14/09/2018 в 18:52 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет: >> We already have all the mechanics in place to work with properties - we use >> ignite.build and ignite.revision from ignite.properties which are adjusted >> during the build in the binary package. >> >> Should I create the ticket if there are no objections? >> >> пт, 14 сент. 2018 г. в 13:22, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>: >> >>> Hello! >>> >>> So now there's an issue that this script makes source change after every >>> build, show up in git status. >>> >>> What we could do to it: >>> - Commit the changes after the build, once. In hopes that it won't change >>> very often. With benefit that we could do that right now, before the code >>> freeze. >>> - Move these values to a properties file from both pom.xml and >>> IgniteProvider.java. Any problems with this approach? We'll just read them >>> from classpath properties file. >>> - Update the links in the file once and remove them from build process. Why >>> were they added to build process in the first place - to make them >>> configurable during build? >>> >>> 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. >>>>
