Hello!
I have committed ignite-spring-data_2.2 to ignite-2.8.
By bumping versisons I mean the following:
<slf4j.version>1.7.*7*</slf4j.version>
<slf4j16.version>1.6.*4*</slf4j16.version>
<snappy.version>1.1.7.*2*</snappy.version>
<spark.hadoop.version>2.6.*5*</spark.hadoop.version>
<spark.version>2.3.*0*</spark.version>
<spring.data.version>1.13.*14*.RELEASE</spring.data.version> <!--
don't forget to update spring version -->
<spring.version>4.3.*18*.RELEASE</spring.version><!-- don't forget
to update spring-data version -->
<spring.data-2.0.version>2.0.*9*.RELEASE</spring.data-2.0.version>
<!-- don't forget to update spring-5.0 version -->
<spring-5.0.version>5.0.*8*.RELEASE</spring-5.0.version><!-- don't
forget to update spring-data-2.0 version -->
All these libraries have maintenance release (such as our 2.7.*6*) and I
think it would be beneficial to upgrade these dependencies to the latest
maintenance version found in Maven Central.
For example, there is spring.data-2.0 2.0.*14*.RELEASE.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
чт, 26 дек. 2019 г. в 19:32, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>:
> A huge +1 for adding Spring Data related fixes/improvements. Ilya is right
> that Spring Data related questions sparked last time due to missing support
> of 2.2 version.
>
> Ilya, could you elaborate on what you mean under "bumping the versions"? Do
> you suggest performing a straightforward upgrade of "ignite-spring-data" to
> version 2.2 and introducing "ignite-spring-data-{old-version"} for the
> previous versions? If it's so, I fully agree with the proposal.
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:52 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > I propose to add the following ticket to the scope:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12259 (3 commits, be
> careful
> > with release version)
> >
> > Adding tickets to scope surely seems crazy now, but I will provide the
> > following considerations:
> > * This is Spring Data 2.2 integration, which we currently do not have,
> > leading to lots of confused questions on stack overflow and mailing list.
> > Spring Data is important to our public image since many people may learn
> > about out project by starting with Spring Data.
> >
> > * It has zero code impact outside of its own module (just 2 POM file
> > touched and that's all).
> >
> > * The core was ready since early November but, due to gmail quirk, we did
> > not react to it in time.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Another semi-related question. *Should we bump our dependencies' versions
> > before releasing 2.8?* I talk mainly about spring and hibernate
> > dependencies. We could switch them to their latest maintenance versions
> to
> > avoid shipping default links to outdated packages.
> >
> > I think this is one of things that are very hard to do between releases,
> so
> > I think this dependencies bumping should be a part of a formal
> > release/testing cycle, and then be backported to master.
> >
> > I could volunteer to do that myself, if we agree to merge these version
> > upgrades to ignite-2.8 and then re-test.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > вт, 24 дек. 2019 г. в 13:22, Zhenya Stanilovsky
> <arzamas...@mail.ru.invalid
> > >:
> >
> > >
> > > Igniters, i`l try to compare 2.8 release candidate vs 2.7.6,
> > > last sha 2.8 was build from : 9d114f3137f92aebc2562a
> > > i use yardstick benchmarks, 4 bare machine with: 2x Xeon X5570 96Gb
> > 512GB
> > > SSD 2048GB HDD 10GB/s
> > > 1 for client (driver) and 3 for servers.
> > > this mappings for graphs and real yardstick tests:
> > >
> > > atomic-put: IgnitePutBenchmark
> > > sql-merge-query: IgniteSqlMergeQueryBenchmark
> > > atomic-get: IgniteGetBenchmark
> > > tx-get: IgniteGetTxBenchmark
> > > tx-put: IgnitePutTxBenchmark
> > > atomic-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllBenchmark
> > > tx-put-all-bs-10: IgnitePutAllTxBenchmark
> > >
> > > cacheMode — partitioned
> > > CacheWriteSynchronizationMode.FULL_SYNC
> > > 1 backup
> > >
> > > 1. wal = log_only 2. wal = none 3. persistence disabled.
> > > Thanks Maxim for wiki page [1]
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.8#ApacheIgnite2.8-Benchmarks
> > >
> > > do we need some bisect or other work here ?
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >------- Forwarded message -------
> > > >From: "Maxim Muzafarov" < mmu...@apache.org >
> > > >To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> > > >Cc:
> > > >Subject: Apache Ignite 2.8 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]
> > > >Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:44:31 +0300
> > > >
> > > >Igniters,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >It's almost a year has passed since the last major Apache Ignite 2.7
> > > >has been released. We've accumulated a lot of performance improvements
> > > >and a lot of new features which are waiting for their release date.
> > > >Here is my list of the most interesting things from my point since the
> > > >last major release:
> > > >
> > > >Service Grid,
> > > >Monitoring,
> > > >Recovery Read
> > > >BLT auto-adjust,
> > > >PDS compression,
> > > >WAL page compression,
> > > >Thin client: best effort affinity,
> > > >Thin client: transactions support (not yet)
> > > >SQL query history
> > > >SQL statistics
> > > >
> > > >I think we should no longer wait and freeze the master branch anymore
> > > >and prepare the next major release by the end of the year.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >I propose to discuss Time, Scope of Apache Ignite 2.8 release and also
> > > >I want to propose myself to be the release manager of the planning
> > > >release.
> > > >
> > > >Scope Freeze: November 4, 2019
> > > >Code Freeze: November 18, 2019
> > > >Voting Date: December 10, 2019
> > > >Release Date: December 17, 2019
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >WDYT?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
